1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 930,040 against the Plaintiff regarding the Defendant and its related amount, from March 24, 2018 to September 25, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the plaintiff's vehicle below C.

the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle, and the defendant is the defendant's "Defendant's vehicle" below D vehicle.

It is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract.

B. On March 11, 2018, at Yangju-si, there is a central line sign of the entrance of the E-House Underground Parking Lot at Yangju-si, the accident in question refers to the accident in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle is shocked with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was exposed from the ground to the ground level on the first floor of the underground parking lot, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was going to the ground level from the underground parking lot.

(c) On March 23, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,239,800 of the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost, excluding KRW 309,00,000, as the insurance proceeds of the instant accident. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,239,80 as the insurance proceeds of the instant accident

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence revealed prior to the determination of the percentage of negligence, the defendant vehicle can be found to have caused the following circumstances: (a) the central line indicated in the entry into and exit from the parking lot is considerably invaded, and the plaintiff vehicle listed in the rapid hacker section seems not to have been easy to avoid the defendant vehicle, which considerably fell into the center of the road; (b) the accident in this case occurred due to the principal negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.

However, according to the above evidence, the entrance road, which is the place where the accident in this case occurred, is unlikely to intrude the central line due to the revolving of the vehicle, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle is negligent in driving the vehicle adjacent to the central line. Accordingly, the accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle as seen earlier.

In full view of the location, circumstances, etc. of the instant accident, it is reasonable to 20% of the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and Defendant’s vehicle as 80%.

B. The scope of the claim for reimbursement is insurance money based on the security for self-vehicle damage.