1. Of the judgment of the first instance, KRW 822,220 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from April 21, 2016 to October 18, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. The summary of the instant accident is as follows.

1) Date and time of an accident: At around 12:40 on April 8, 2016, the accident occurred: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle started from the parking zone of the apartment parking lot of the apartment in Chuncheon-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si: (b) the accident occurred that conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle, which came into the left-hand side on the right-hand side of the moving direction while entering the way between the parking zone. (c) The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,174,60 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on April 20, 2016. (No dispute over the grounds for recognition exists; (a) the entry or video of the evidence in subparagraphs A through 7

2. Determination

A. In full view of all the circumstances, including the background of the accident, the degree of conflict, and the degree of shock, etc. recorded in the record of the occurrence of liability for damages, the Defendant vehicle committed an error by failing to properly examine the movement of the Plaintiff vehicle within the parking zone, while excessively turning the vehicle into the parking zone, and the Plaintiff vehicle also went into the passage between the parking zone, instead of properly examining the fact while the vehicle is proceeding as above.

Furthermore, in light of the specific situation at the time of the accident, including the interval of two vehicles before and after the accident, and the degree of the collision and shock of each vehicle, it is reasonable to determine the fault ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle 3:7.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,174,600 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is as seen earlier. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, the insurer, pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act, obtains a claim for damages against the Defendant, the perpetrator of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is the plaintiff.