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. In fact, the Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”).

On May 10, 2015, the driver of the defendant vehicle driven the defendant vehicle and driven the two-lanes of the driver's seat of the plaintiff vehicle that stopped in the second-lane of the Geumsung-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 8,690,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by July 12, 2015 due to the instant accident, and the Defendant paid KRW 1,838,000 to the Plaintiff on December 22, 2015, according to the decision of the Deliberation Committee on the Settlement of indemnity Money, which determined that the ratio of the Defendant’s driver’s fault was 20%.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who had shocked the front door of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was already opened due to neglecting the duty of safe driving, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay 6,852,00 won (i.e., KRW 8,690,000 - 1,838,000) out of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff, and damages for delay.

B. It is insufficient to recognize that the damaged parts and degree of the original Defendant vehicle, which is recognized by the evidence prior to the judgment, is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant vehicle driven without examining it in a prior front of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle and caused the shock of the above door. There is no other evidence to recognize it (In light of the above, when the Defendant vehicle passes by the Plaintiff vehicle, it seems that the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle opened the front door of the driver’s seat). Ultimately, the instant accident is one-lane after stopping on the front side at the two-lanes of the bend road and opening the front door of the driver’s seat.