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 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. Around 10:30 on June 27, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lane road in the Seodo 197-4, the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the right-hand side of the road was shocked by the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On August 14, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 29,640,000 insurance money (i.e., repair cost of KRW 34,460,000 - the return of remainder 4,820,000) to the insured of the Plaintiff vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, Eul evidence No. 5 (including each number), video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that (1) the defendant's vehicle parked on the road in which the accident of this case occurred in violation of parking method and time, which caused the accident of this case and caused the negligence of the defendant vehicle to be 20%. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 5,928,000, out of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff, equivalent to 20% of the negligence of the defendant vehicle.

(2) As to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case was caused exclusively by the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle, since the plaintiff's vehicle neglected the duty of a front-time driver and caused the defendant's vehicle stopped on the side.

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each of the above facts found in the judgment, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff’s vehicle neglected the duty of front-time watching, leading the Defendant’s vehicle without changing its direction or decreasing its speed despite being parked, and the failure to perform the duty of front-time watching of the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to be the direct cause of the instant accident.