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 an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to Alearning car (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B C-W car (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On August 10, 2014, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the road front of the implied port of view and vibration (hereinafter “the instant road”) at the same time in the East Sea, with a three-lane distance from each other, is open to the rear door of the driver’s seat of the Defendant vehicle, which was parked on the two-lane one lane among the two-lanes of the two-lanes, causing damage to both parts of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by shocking the upper right side of the front right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

By August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 810,000 in total for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's negligence on the side of the driver's seat on the side of the defendant's vehicle at the time when the plaintiff's vehicle passes along the side of the defendant's vehicle, without examining the surrounding area, and the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle has no duty of care to expect the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle to drive on the same side of the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle has no negligence.

B. As to this, the Defendant: (a) the instant accident occurred due to the negligence that the Plaintiff’s driver neglected his duty to see the front door; and (b) the two-lanes of the instant road are the roads front of the customary market for fishery products narrow in the parking lot, in which a large number of vehicles are parked, and the drivers and passengers frequently board the vehicle; and (c) thus, the Plaintiff’s driver is the Plaintiff’s vehicle.