1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant’s Intervenor with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 14:29, Apr. 2, 2015, D driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and proceeded along the lane in the opposite direction on the road in the underground parking lot of the building E in light of light, and the Defendant’s front part of the right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was trying to turn to the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the left-hand side, was shocked by the front part of the lower-hand part

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On May 11, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 720,000 insurance money to the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle D under the agreement due to the instant accident, according to the foregoing non-insurance accident security agreement.

[Based on recognition] The items of Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), the purpose of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s vehicle was liable to pay the full amount of KRW 720,000 of the above insurance money paid by the Plaintiff in relation to the instant accident caused by the total negligence on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and damages for delay thereof, due to the mistake that the Defendant’s vehicle neglected to perform the duty of care at the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of that vehicle,

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident did not err by the Defendant’s vehicle, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s vehicle intrudes the center line on the road in the above underground parking lot to drive the Defendant’s vehicle that was normally bypassing it.

B. In light of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant accident is a vehicle driving in the opposite direction on the road in the above underground parking lot.