1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

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

On July 11, 2016, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, driving the Defendant vehicle on July 10, 2016, and was in conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the left side of the direction of proceeding while the driver was in a direct control of the third party at the latest laund on the side of the laund-dong, Changwon-si.

On September 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 263,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident as a security for self-motor vehicle damage.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident was caused by Defendant’s negligence, which led to the Plaintiff’s shocking of the vehicle, while driving the Defendant’s vehicle while neglecting his duty of care and safe driving.

Therefore, it seeks reimbursement equivalent to the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. The instant accident occurred entirely due to the Plaintiff’s negligence, which caused the Plaintiff’s shocking of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was parked at the time of the sudden departure of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving on the road.

3. 판단 앞서 든 증거 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음의 사정, 즉 ① 원고 차량의 파손 사진(갑 제2호증)을 보면, 우측 전면부가 손상되어 있고, 바퀴가 우측으로 돌아가 있었던 점, ② 반면 피고 차량의 파손 사진(갑 제3호증)을 보면, 피고 차량은 전면부가 아닌 좌측 측면부에 움푹 들어간 손상을 입은 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 사고는 도로 좌측에 정차되어 있던 원고 차량이 출발하여 도로 중심부로 진입하려다 직진 중이던 피고 차량의 좌측 측면 부위를 충격하여 일어났다고 보인다.

In addition, such an accident.