1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. The facts constituting the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, either in the absence of a dispute between the parties, or in the entries or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 8, 9, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including the serial number).

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with D with respect to the EMW vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to FM vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On July 16, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in the parking zone partitioned by parking lines in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Gbuilding parking zone, and the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in front of the vehicles parked in the parking line, including the Plaintiff’s vehicle, in a right angle to the said vehicles.

(Y) Mambro Parking). (c)

In the course of the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) who parked in the above parking zone, sent the front door of the Defendant’s seat to drive the Defendant’s vehicle in order to drive the vehicle, the Defendant’s seat door contacted the left-hand part of the front left-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

Plaintiff

On July 30, 2018, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the vehicle, paid insurance proceeds to H Co., Ltd., the insured by paying KRW 850,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to H Co., Ltd.

2. However, the Plaintiff, without due care, is an accident caused by the Plaintiff’s total negligence of the part of the Defendant’s driver’s seat of the Defendant’s vehicle. As such, the Intervenor is obligated to compensate for damages caused by tort against D, the insured of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Since the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was exempted from its payment obligation by subrogation of the said damage, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, was paid to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act.