1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part of the failure of the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 5, 2018, around 15:30, at the F parking lot located in Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-si E, Changwon-si, there was an accident of collision between the front right part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the passage according to the direction of the driving indicated on the surface and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle driving along the front right part of the vehicle running along the passage from the parking zone.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On November 12, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 348,900 (except for KRW 200,000 on one’s own charges) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The summary of the argument 1) The plaintiff's vehicle should enter the passage after securing the safety of the passage, but the defendant's vehicle does not look at the movement of the vehicle running along the passage and attempt to make the accident in this case. The accident in this case is entirely caused by the negligence of the defendant's vehicle. Therefore, the defendant's vehicle should pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 348,90 and the damages for its delay. 2) The defendant's vehicle did not comply with the duty of safety driving, such as the duty of driving, the duty of driving along the passage along the parking lot, the duty of front-time watching, etc., and it cannot be said that there is any gross negligence on any one side with respect to the accident in this case.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the above facts of recognition 1 and the evidence mentioned above, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident occurred by the negligence of the original Defendant vehicle, and that the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle is 30:70.

(1) When a vehicle stops in a parking zone, the left and right of the parking zone shall be well examined.