1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance insurance contract with C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with respect to the Plaintiff B vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. On February 25, 2016, at around 19:12, the Defendant vehicle entered the sloping intersection (hereinafter “instant intersection”) of the Incheon International Airport Ground Parking Lot (hereinafter “instant parking lot”). On February 25, 2016, the part of the Plaintiff vehicle entering the instant intersection, crossinging from the left side of the running direction of the Defendant vehicle to the right side of the Defendant vehicle, and shocking the front door and the front door of the Plaintiff vehicle, which entered the instant intersection, with the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On the other hand, at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in the parking zone of the instant parking lot, while leaving the parking zone and driving in the direction to the right side, was entered ahead of the Defendant’s vehicle at the instant intersection.

However, on the floor of the parking lot that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding before entering the instant intersection, the Plaintiff’s vehicle indicated a scambling to the opposite direction.

In the foregoing accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed to the sum of KRW 1,931,210,000, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,931,210 to the Plaintiff’s repair company, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the intersection as well as the negligence of the Defendant’s failure to discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle that first entered the intersection and was directly engaged in the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was indicated on the floor of the parking lot and the opposite direction. As such, the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, respectively.