1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles.

On January 22, 2018, around 11:45, there was an accident in which the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the back part of the Defendant vehicle are contacted in the street parking lot in front of the Ftax Accounting Office located in Ansan-gu E (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff deducted self-charges from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and paid KRW 400,800.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the whole documentary evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was an accident that caused the Plaintiff’s fault on the part of the Defendant’s driver, as the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in the parking lot while neglecting its duty to post-on watch while parking the vehicle.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle KRW 400,800 and the delay damages therefor as the reimbursement.

B. Determination 1) Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case as to the existence of liability, it is insufficient to recognize that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The plaintiff vehicle was parked first, and thereafter, the defendant vehicle appears to have parked. However, the defendant asserted that all the defendant vehicle and the plaintiff vehicle were parked at the time of the occurrence of the accident of this case (the defendant asserted that he was parked at the time of the occurrence of the accident of this case, but it was recognized that the above assertion was based on mistake and corrected as above on the first page of the preparatory document dated March 19, 2019, which was submitted to this court. However, it is not clear in the preparatory document dated September 25, 2019 submitted to this court, but it is considered that it was not originally returned to its original assertion.