1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against Plaintiff A, equivalent to the following amount ordered to be paid, shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff A is the owner of a D-car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract for the E-car (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On August 15, 2018, at around 09:46, the Defendant’s vehicle, who was enrolled in the direction of the ground exit in the underground parking lot of Yongsan-gu Seoul Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul along with the connecting passage, conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle that discovered and suspended the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). As a result, Plaintiff B, who driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, suffered injury, such as salt, tension, etc. of the trend that requires approximately two weeks of treatment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 18 through 20 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver is more than 50% since the instant accident occurred, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped in the center line with the center line and interfered with the course, and the Plaintiff B did not call the attention of the Defendant’s driver by operating headlights or sounding the horn.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the facts of the recognition as above and the evidence mentioned above, namely, ① the Defendant’s vehicle is going up along the underground parking lot connecting the center line with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, ② the instant accident occurred on the wind of the Defendant vehicle, even though it was discovered that the Defendant’s vehicle was going up and stopped, and ③ the Plaintiff’s driver’s attention by operating headlights or sounding the horn.