1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff A Truck (hereinafter “Plaintiff Truck”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s automobile B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On June 3, 2015, around 08:55 on June 3, 2015, Plaintiff truck was shocked with the front part of Defendant vehicle that was parked on the mastal road while driving on the road in the apartment complex in the Mapo-dong, Kimpo-dong apartment complex.

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

By August 18, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 278,440 as insurance money to the Plaintiff truck driver (hereinafter “victim”) in the name of medical treatment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion that ① the defendant vehicle driver was negligent in parking illegally in the reverse direction of the road along which the center line is marked, and the above negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case, and ② the defendant is liable to pay the victim the full amount of medical expenses within the scope of the liability insurance amount as stipulated in Article 3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee Act (hereinafter "The Automobile Accident Compensation Act"), and since the plaintiff paid the medical expenses of the victim, the defendant is obligated to claim the amount equivalent to the above medical expenses to the plaintiff.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged in the above facts of recognition, comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 as well as the overall purport of the arguments and images, and the whole purport of the arguments, namely, ① the location of the accident in question is an apartment complex, a yellow-type line, and thus it cannot be deemed that there is a caution, regulation, direction, etc. similar to the "safety signs" as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act, and ② the apartment management office at the time is a street parking in the apartment complex.