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. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C&D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On September 29, 2017, around 11:35, F driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle along the one-lane road of 10-lane, Gangseo-gu, Busan, Gangseo-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant road”). However, the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the yellow real line of the instant road starts to the left-hand side, and entered the said road in the direction of the Plaintiff’s moving into the said road, the front-hand part and fences of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the front part of the road was shocked.

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

On November 10, 2017, the Plaintiff disposed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by transfer to C, and paid KRW 5,430,000 for the remaining value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle after deducting KRW 550,000 from the value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from KRW 5,980,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case is an accident by unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle because the defendant vehicle who was parked in the zone subject to prohibition of parking and stopping on the road of this case enters the road on which the plaintiff vehicle was travelling without turning on the direction light, and it is caused by the driver's unilateral negligence. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to claim the full amount of the non-life insurance paid to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defendant's liability ratio is 80% because the plaintiff's vehicle is proceeding at a rapid speed without neglecting the duty of front-down and the accident occurred because the plaintiff's vehicle did not discover the defendant's vehicle entering the road of this case from the right side.

(b) judgment 1 p.m. ;