1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On September 19, 2015, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle contacted the Defendant’s vehicle that was parked on the 19-road, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, by driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on September 19, 2015.

hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case"

(C) On March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,168,200 of the insurance money that the Defendant paid to the insured of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the Defendant out of KRW 1,298,00,00 of the insurance money that the Defendant paid to the Defendant to the insured of the Defendant. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute over the non-contentious facts, the evidence set forth in subparagraphs A and 7, and evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the serial number, images, and the purport of the entire pleadings).

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The location of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff did not contact the Defendant’s vehicle, which was parked on the left side of the runway, due to avoiding the Defendant’s vehicle that had been parked on the left side, and even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle contacted the Defendant vehicle, it is unreasonable to recognize the Defendant’s vehicle’s fault on a narrow runway as 10%. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of deliberation and decision without any legal cause, return the unjust enrichment of KRW 1,168,200, and delay damages.

B. According to the above evidence, the accident of this case can be found to have occurred by having contacted the defendant's vehicle on which the plaintiff's vehicle on alleyway was parked, and considering the circumstances of the accident of this case, the parking location and contact level of the defendant's vehicle, and the current status of the road where the accident of this case occurred, it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle is 9:1.

In the end, it is eventually.