1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A’s passenger vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of B bus vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 29, 2016, around 07:13, the Defendant’s vehicle parked on the two-lanes in front of the bus stop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, which was located in front of the bus stops in the two-lanes in front of the bus stops over the first and the second two-lanes in order to ensure bus passengers get off and get out of the two-lanes, and the vehicle stops on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was located on the left side of the Defendant’s left side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On October 28, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance money equivalent to KRW 1,594,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual number), and argument of the parties to the whole pleadings

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident is that the Defendant’s vehicle stops more than two lanes with the Defendant’s one lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked, and the Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the duty of safe driving of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle was caused by the concurrence between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle. The negligence ratio is 60% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are 40%, and the Defendant’s vehicle is 40%, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount equivalent to 40

B. The Defendant’s vehicle stopped along the two-lanes of the vehicle that was parked on the two-lanes, and starts normally. The Defendant’s vehicle, which followed, did not send the Defendant’s vehicle that was driven ahead of the two-lanes but went beyond the median line in an unreasonable manner, and the instant accident occurred by reporting the vehicle coming from the median line to enter the Defendant’s vehicle again, and driving the vehicle into the Defendant’s vehicle with the hand Hand on the opposite side of the median line. Thus, the instant accident is the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that affected the center line