1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount.

1. At the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, at the time of the insured vehicle’s accident, is proceeding with the instant road in front of the seat point of the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Bank EF Bank (hereinafter “instant road”) located in the place of Incheon, on March 20, 2019 at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident that conflicts between the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s front-hander and the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving over the center line that caused damage to the vehicle parked on the front side by the Defendant vehicle, which was driven on the front-hander of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The amount of the insurance payment was 12,713,270 won for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and on May 14, 2019, the details of the instant accident are as follows.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or image of Gap evidence 1 through 17 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred due to the collision of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the Defendant’s central line. As such, the instant accident occurred due to the former negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle used to temporarily stop the Plaintiff’s vehicle beyond the central line, and thus, the instant accident occurred on the wind for which the Plaintiff’s own driving. Therefore, in calculating the fault ratio of the instant accident, the driver’s negligence should be considered, and the repair cost paid by the Plaintiff should be excessive, and only KRW 4,032,710 should be recognized as repair cost.

3. Determination

A. According to the above basic facts, it is difficult to view that the accident in this case occurred as the main cause of the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who proceeded beyond the central line.

B. However, in full view of the purport of the evidence duly admitted as above, from the standpoint of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle could have been aware of the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle invadeds the central line.