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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff concluded an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the insurer and the B-owned vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. The Defendant also concluded an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the insurer, and with C, for D vehicles owned by C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

C. Around 08:00 on August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding to park in the official parking lot in the Seo-gu, Seodong Small and Medium Enterprise Support Agency, Seo-gu, Seodong, Seo-gu, Incheon, and the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding following the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle left a left-hand turn at a parking space located on the right-hand side and then left-hand without turning an emergency moving-out, etc., and the Defendant’s vehicle reported that the Plaintiff’s vehicle makes a left-hand turn as it is, and there was an accident that conflicts between the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the left-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The defendant paid C insurance money of KRW 1,252,00,000, which is equivalent to the repair cost of the defendant vehicle.

E. The committee for deliberation on the dispute over the reimbursement of automobile insurance decided to deliberate and coordinate that the negligence of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident is “7:3.”

F. The Plaintiff paid 876,400 won, which is 30% of the above insurance money, to the Defendant in accordance with the above deliberation and resolution decision.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry and video of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and purport of whole pleading

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim is that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral fault, even though the Defendant’s vehicle, which is a prior vehicle, has a duty to predicting the future to park, and thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who is a prior vehicle, entered the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant is equivalent to the amount of KRW 876,400 paid by the plaintiff to the defendant without any legal ground.