1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B rocketing car (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to a car A’s mother car (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s automobile”).

B. On January 19, 2014, at around 16:30 on January 19, 2014, C used a vehicle on the Plaintiff’s side and moved the alleyway front of the “E” C, located in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, to the right-hand side of the “E” (hereinafter “victimed building”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 60,494,00 in total, with the repair cost of the damaged building and the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's plaintiff's vehicle C is obligated to pay an amount equivalent to the ratio of liability to the amount of indemnity, since the plaintiff's alleged vehicle C discovered and avoided the defendant's vehicle illegally parked in front of the damaged building while bypassing it.

3. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 6 (including each number, if any), the defendant's vehicle was parked in front of the damaged building in the direction of the front of the damaged building as the front side of the full side of the pleading. The plaintiff's vehicle entered a part of the damaged building between the damaged building and the defendant's vehicle and was parked in the direction of parallel with the defendant's vehicle. The plaintiff's vehicle stopped in the direction of parallel with the defendant's vehicle. On the date the accident of this case occurred, the average temperature was 2.7 degrees above, and the average temperature was 2.7 degrees above. Thus, the plaintiff's driver stated in the above facts of recognition as "emergency suspicion on the day of the accident" and "a building conflict because it was not operated."