1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On September 18, 2018, around 14:20, the F department store underground parking lots located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E, stopped to drive the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in the parking column to the left side, and subsequently parked thereafter, the vehicle left left behind the parking column to the left, and without viewing the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped from the parking section to the left, and without viewing the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked behind the Defendant’s vehicle, the front front front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the left side of the vehicle.

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

On October 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 863,000, excluding KRW 215,000, out of the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

On April 1, 2019, the committee for deliberation on the dispute over reimbursement of automobile insurance determined on April 1, 2019 that the ratio of negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle was 1: 9.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case occurred after confirming that the plaintiff's vehicle passed by the defendant's vehicle, but the defendant's vehicle stopped by himself and did not turn on an emergency and then did not check the side. The driver of the plaintiff's vehicle could not expect that the defendant's vehicle will move down as above. Thus, the accident in this case occurred by the unilateral negligence of the defendant vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant could have anticipated that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle will continue to drive the vehicle due to an accident that occurred in the underground parking lot, while the driver of the plaintiff vehicle will drive the vehicle after stopping.

As such, the defendant shall be the vehicle.