1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,631,580 as well as to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into an automobile insurance contract with A and B on the B Closts Flusing Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Motor Vehicle”).

The Defendant entered into an automobile insurance contract with Crenk and DST5 vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and E leased the Defendant vehicle from Crenk.

B. (1) On November 5, 2015, E driven the Defendant’s vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.1% on blood alcohol level around 09:21, 2015, while driving the Defendant vehicle, and driving the vehicle in the direction of double tent from the Jinjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. (2) The Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked at the edge of the lane in the direction of the progress and opposite direction of the Defendant vehicle.

On the other hand, the part parked by the plaintiff was a place where parking is prohibited.

3) E did not discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle which was stopped on the opposite lane due to negligence that neglected the duty of front-time drinking in the state of drinking and shocked the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the front side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(C) On December 22, 2015, the Plaintiff, including the payment of insurance proceeds, paid KRW 16,315,800 to A with insurance proceeds arising from the instant accident. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 1 through 8, and Eul’s 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the failure to perform the duty of care due to the driving of the Defendant vehicle driver, and that there is no negligence on the part of the Plaintiff vehicle driver, and that there is no proximate causal link between the illegal parking of the Plaintiff vehicle and the accident of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred both the negligence that the driver of the defendant vehicle neglected to keep the vehicle under the influence of alcohol and the negligence that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle parked on the road where parking is prohibited.

(b) judgment;