1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

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 a mutual aid agreement with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”) owned by C, which are 6.5 tons of truck, and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

나. 평택시 F에 있는 G마트 앞 “ㅏ”자형 교차로의 아래쪽에서 위쪽 직진 방향인 G마트 방향에서 H아파트 방향 도로는 교차로 전후로 3차선 도로이고, 교차로 통과 후 일정거리 지나서 2차선 도로로 차로가 줄어드는 모양이다.

C. On April 26, 2018, around 23:50, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked without taking any particular safety measures on the three-lanes in front of the H apartment, following the said intersection.

The driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is driving along one lane from the state of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of more than 0.05% to less than 0.1% to the intersection before passing through the intersection.

The front side of the plaintiff vehicle that passed through the intersection and parked in the three-lanes after passing through the intersection was shocked into the right side of the front part of the defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

Plaintiff

The fence was installed between the three-lanes where the vehicle was parked and the sidewalk, and the fire hydrants was installed inside the fence.

E. On February 12, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,695,850, which is 15% of the insurance money that the Defendant paid to the Defendant with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 7 evidence, Eul 1 to 5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The instant accident alleged by the Plaintiff was caused by the former negligence of the Defendant’s driver, such as Jeonju-si, Safety Driving, Drinking Driving, and Regulation Speeding Violation, etc., and the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked on the third lane did not interfere with the operation of the Defendant vehicle, and there was no illegal parking of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Even the defendant's vehicle is a steel fence, street trees, and apartment building installed on the roadside.