1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Plaintiff.

On December 13:26, 2019 at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s insurance relation D E at the time of the accident was parked in the direction opposite to the Creshmark in the Gresh collision situation in F at the location of the place, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in the direction of opposite to the Creshmark mark in the Creshing parking area while the vehicle was driven in the above gas station, and was parked in the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the station, KRW 7,441,60,000 for the payment of the insurance proceeds of the collision with the Defendant vehicle.

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1 to 7, Gap's evidence 1 to 3, Eul's evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff, although there was a one-way road sign leading to visual opposite direction with the centering around the main abandonment, the plaintiff's vehicle was parked in the main direction and was driven by the plaintiff's normal progress while driving the vehicle in the normal direction, and therefore, the plaintiff's vehicle could not avoid the accident of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's unilateral negligence is the defendant's vehicle.

The defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred as the plaintiff's driver's negligence should be applied more than 60% because the plaintiff's vehicle was negligent in performing her duty of care without temporary suspension after completing the main direction road marking.

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of all the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, namely, the Defendant’s vehicle parked in the direction opposite to the sign and the sign and the sign and the sign of the parking zone in which the parking lot was parked, and the vehicle was negligent in failing to perform its duty of front and rear space transit while driving ahead of it. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was also driving in the station and was driven by the Defendant’s vehicle at the time, but did not properly examine the front and rear left.