1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On April 28, 2015, around 07:54, the Defendant’s vehicle was driven in the future as a 3rd underground parking lot in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, for the entry into the underground parking lot, and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was absent from the underground parking lot, was shocked with the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On October 6, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,000,000 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence that the plaintiff's vehicle was sufficiently aware of the fact that at the time of the accident of this case, the defendant vehicle was in a section where entry into the entrance of the underground parking lot was prohibited, and the vehicle warning was given outside the parking lot, and thus, the defendant vehicle driver is the driver of this case, who is a driver of this case, claiming for the payment of the total amount of the above insurance money and the damages for delay.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle related to the accident exceeds 90% since the accident of this case occurred at the time of the accident, because the accident of this case occurred on the wind that the plaintiff vehicle intrudes with the center line on the virtual lane at the time of the accident.

B. According to the above evidence, the vehicle warning devices are installed at the location of the accident in this case, and the point of accident is a road connected to the entry into an underground parking lot. This is recognized.