1. The judgment of the first instance is modified.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to CKD vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to DK5 vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 13, 2018, around 08:44, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the two lanes of the three-lanes and intended to change the three-lanes to the three-lanes, and the Defendant’s vehicle driving on the three-lanes shocked the back of the E-Poter vehicle (hereinafter “victim”) in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle is illegally parked on the frontline, thereby damaging the damaged vehicle (hereinafter “the instant traffic accident”).

C. The Defendant, as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, paid KRW 3,315,00 at the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle.

The Defendant asserted that the instant traffic accident occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver, and filed a claim for reimbursement against the Defendant. The FSC decided to set the ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle fault to 80% and the ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle fault to 20%.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,652,00 (=3,15,000 x 80%) to the Defendant according to the above decision.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s liability ratio is 60% in light of the point of occurrence of the instant traffic accident, circumstances surrounding CCTV, details of duty of care, degree of violation, etc.

Then, 663,00 [=3,15,00 】 80%-60%] out of the amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant is gaining profits without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the above amount and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

3. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire evidence presented prior to the determination.

In other words, the plaintiff 1 changed the course in close vicinity to the defendant 1.

(2) The driver of the defendant vehicle was driving along the train.