1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) is driving on around 00:35 on May 2, 2018 at the time of the instant accident, as shown in the attached Form No. E’s site map, at the time of the instant accident, at around the time of the event.

The payment of the insurance proceeds paid in total of KRW 2,60,760 by July 19, 2018, which was estimated as the front portion of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was stopped (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) and the cost of after-the-counter treatment [applicable] is not disputed; Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul’s evidence No. 1, Eul’s evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments;

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the negligence of the Defendant’s driver was at least 10% on the part of the Defendant’s driver on the ground that the instant accident occurred because the Plaintiff’s vehicle was concealed due to the illegal stopping of the vehicle, whereas the Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver, who was on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle while making a stop

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments revealed earlier, namely, ① the road involved in the instant accident did not have any particular obstacle in the front door in the straight line; ② the bus stops installed around the scene of the instant accident but at night at the time of the instant accident, and street lamps were installed on the road, making it easy to find out that bus stops on three-lanes; ③ the driver of the Plaintiff concealed the Defendant’s vehicle under the influence of alcohol exceeding 0.1% of the blood alcohol content; ④ the Defendant’s vehicle was parked.

Comprehensively taking account of the fact that there is no other evidence to deem the instant accident as a place where stopping is prohibited on the instant road, the instant accident is the Plaintiff’s vehicle that did not properly perform the duty of pre-stopping while driving while drinking alcohol.