1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to AYF rocketing car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B newSM5 car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 19, 2015: (a) around 13:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which entered the second floor of the building underground of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, into the entrance passage; (b) conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle seeking to enter the entrance passage from the third floor to the second floor parking lot of the underground level; and (c) the entrance passage from the third floor to the second floor.

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

On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 571,100 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] The parking lot of the building alleged by the plaintiff by the parties to the dispute, the entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, is a separate structure between the entrance passage and the exit passage, and the vehicle that enters and leaves the parking lot can not be driven.

Nevertheless, the defendant's vehicle tried to enter the second floor parking lot in the middle floor while driving the entrance path. The accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of the defendant's vehicle.

The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle was shocked by the defendant's vehicle that had been stopped rapidly by making a sudden round of the vehicle without stopping or stopping the vehicle from the second floor parking lot and the passage of the exit and exit at the point where the passage of the vehicle is visible. The accident of this case is caused by the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle.

Judgment

According to the statements in Gap evidence 6-1 to 3 and Eul evidence 1 to 3, the parking lot of the above building is separate from the entrance passage and the exit passage, and the vehicle entering the parking lot is unable to pass, and only one-way passage is possible, and it cannot pass again immediately into the parking lot of each underground floor while proceeding the exit passage.