1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a vehicle A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) owner of each automobile.

B. At around 07:50 on August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked on the right side of the road in the vicinity of the tourist hotel in Changwon-si, the Defendant’s front before the Defendant’s vehicle, where the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked on the right side of the road while driving the road, and there was an accident of shocking D coming from the right side to the port.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

C. In the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 26,576,080 in total by December 29, 2016, including the medical expenses of the victim D.

(The plaintiff calculated the fault of the victim in relation to the accident of this case as 20% and paid the insurance money to the victim. 【The ground for recognition 】 Each entry and video of Gap 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was unable to properly discover the D, which was crossing a bicycle on the crosswalk due to the illegal parking of the Defendant’s vehicle asserted by the Plaintiff.

The instant accident conflicts between the Plaintiff’s negligence due to the Plaintiff’s failure to drive and the Defendant’s illegal parking, and the fault ratio should be deemed to be 50:50.

Therefore, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant, should pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 13,288,040 equivalent to 50% of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff as the amount of reimbursement.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking into account the details of the instant accident that can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including paper numbers) and the overall purport of the images and pleadings, and the negligence of the Plaintiff and the Defendant vehicle drivers, the instant accident occurred by the negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant vehicle driver, and it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio was 80% of the Plaintiff vehicle driver and 20% of the Defendant vehicle driver.

(1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding with a narrow road with a width of 4.5 meters without a lane.