1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of D vehicle (e.g., liquid words; hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract for E vehicle (e.g., dump trucks; hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff A operated Plaintiff B’s vehicle and stopped the intersection in the direction of the left-hand crossing, as shown in the attached Form, so that Defendant A could detect the Defendant vehicle coming from the opposite intersection, and Defendant A could pass first, while driving the Plaintiff vehicle, and driving the intersection in the form of a farm road, which is not divided into a roadway near the entrance of the F Park at Yangju-si, at the seat of Gri Community Center.

At the time, the truck was parked at the entrance to the left-hand intersection on the basis of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the vehicle was parked at the entrance to the right-hand intersection.

C. While the Defendant’s vehicle stopped the Plaintiff’s vehicle passing through the intersection, the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked by the front side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, 7, Eul evidence No. 1-2, 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of the liability for damages, the driver of the Defendant vehicle violated the duty of care to avoid and drive the parked Plaintiff vehicle while driving the vehicle, despite the fact that there was a duty of care.

Since the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damage caused by the accident.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. 1) If the facts acknowledged earlier are added to Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 1 and 2, it is recognized that the damages for the medical expenses of KRW 223,190 to the plaintiff A and KRW 478,530 to the plaintiff B were incurred due to the instant accident. 2)