1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into the automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On April 13, 2019, around 09:04, the Plaintiff’s front road at the Jeju-si, where the front road was turned back from the Dong-ro to the F-section, and the front part of the Defendant’s front part and the front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat, which entered the road at the parking lot on the left side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, were collision (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On May 22, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 775,010 in total to G, who is a driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, with medical expenses (75,010) incurred from the instant accident and damages (70,000 won).

On the other hand, on May 22, 2019, the Defendant paid KRW 387,500 to the Plaintiff as the final agreement amount with regard to the instant accident, and paid KRW 267,240 to the hospital, from May 24, 2019 to June 17, 2019, as G medical expenses three times.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a normal direct position. The instant accident occurred as the Defendant’s vehicle entered the road in the parking lot without one-way negligence and shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As such, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obliged to pay the total amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the insured as the amount of indemnity.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred is a side road, and there are many parked vehicles, so the Plaintiff’s driver has a duty to safely check the movement of parked vehicles, but has neglected this duty. However, the Plaintiff’s driver’s fault ratio is 40%, and the Defendant further is the Plaintiff.