1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the driver of the vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 4, 2017, around 14:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle passed the passage of an underground parking lot in the direction of the ground exit exit in the F association’s underground parking lot located in Cheongju-si, Cheongju-si. However, around that time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle discovered the Defendant’s vehicle coming from the direction of the ground exit to the passage of the underground parking lot, and posted the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the right side of the passage, and the Defendant’s vehicle stopped on the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was parked in the front part of the parking lot as it was, and there was an accident of collision.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 145,400 to the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost due to the instant accident.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4]

2. The plaintiff's assertion is the cause of the claim in this case. The plaintiff's duty of care to prevent the accident, such as discovering the defendant's vehicle on the ground of underground parking lot and stopping on the right side. Thus, since the accident in this case was caused by the whole negligence of the defendant's vehicle, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the insurance money of KRW 145,400, which is paid to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant's vehicle is a SUV vehicle and it is difficult for the defendant to see the side below the passage. On the other hand, the plaintiff's vehicle could prevent the accident by discovering the defendant's vehicle and sounding the light, so the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle should also be 50%

3. In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff vehicle, even if the Defendant vehicle is SUV, going through the passage in the process of entering the ground entrance to the passage of an underground parking lot.