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, and

1. Basic facts

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

B. On March 9, 2018, at around 13:18, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the front side of the Plaintiff’s right side of the vehicle following the Defendant’s vehicle in order to park on the three-lanes of the 13-lanes of the 13-lanes of the 13-lanes of the building of Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, to move from the two-lanes to the three-lanes of the vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On April 27, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,047,870 as insurance money after deducting KRW 200,000 of the self-paid cost for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the above basic facts and the overall purport of the arguments as a whole, namely, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, who installed a yellow solid line on the side of the road and illegally stops in an area where the stopping of the vehicle is prohibited, and thus, it was not negligent in examining the surrounding traffic conditions despite the duty to safely proceed. The driver of the Plaintiff vehicle was difficult to expect that the Defendant vehicle will depart from the vehicle without any signal during the stop. On the other hand, in light of the fact that the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle was not able to properly examine the vehicle's attitude, and other circumstances of the accident, collision between the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle, and the negligence of the accident in light of all the above circumstances, it is reasonable to 30:70 in light of the above circumstances.

B. The Plaintiff paid within the scope of the reimbursement.