The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

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

1. Basic facts

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

B. On August 31, 2019, at around 13:10, the Defendant’s vehicle, while proceeding near the fish market at the port-dong 7, Jung-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon, was bypassing the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the street, the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the road was shocked by the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle (whether the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked at the time, and whether the vehicle was in progress).

On September 10, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 400,000 (except for KRW 200,000 on its own contributions) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the fault ratio of the Defendant vehicle is equivalent to 90% since the instant accident occurred due to the negligence that the Defendant vehicle was parked while the Plaintiff was parked.

2) As to this, the Defendant was negligent on the part of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in the instant case while the Defendant was in the right-hand line was an accident where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was being parked in the instant case.

The argument is asserted.

B. In full view of the facts admitted prior to the error ratio and the purport of the entire arguments, the following circumstances are acknowledged. ① The instant accident is an accident occurred due to shock between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle that was illegally parked on the road A, and the Defendant’s vehicle that was bypassing back the Plaintiff’s vehicle. ② However, there is no dispute between the parties as to whether the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in existence at the time, and there is no objective evidence to confirm it, and ③ both the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are not liable for the instant accident.