1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

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

B. Around 12:30 on August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was traveling along to park a vehicle at the rest area of the Seodo Highway C, which is located behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded to the right side to overtake the Plaintiff’s vehicle, resulting in an accident that damages the front part of the Plaintiff’s right side and the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On September 6, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 284,000 in total as insurance money due to the instant accident.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 2-4 evidence, Eul's 1-3 evidence, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who neglected his duty at the time of the transfer of the accident.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle was not negligent because the plaintiff's vehicle was shocked with the defendant's vehicle that was normally directly engaged in by the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle.

B. (1) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the instant accident occurred by the Plaintiff’s negligence, inasmuch as the Defendant’s driver who attempted to overtake the instant vehicle continuously without neglecting his/her duty of care, even though he/she did not neglect the duty of care to safely proceed by examining the front direction of the vehicle where the vehicle, prior to the direction of the course, is going behind for parking, and where a vehicle is going behind for parking on the road for one-way traffic, it gives predictability to the latter vehicle by using an emergency, etc., and it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s negligence did so even though he/she has a duty of care to properly examine the left and the rear.