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. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 19, 2017, around 11:10, there was an accident where the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was driving along the parking lot, was shocking the Defendant’s vehicle that had attempted to park within the parking zone (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the facts found in the judgment of the court of first instance and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case, the circumstances leading up to the instant accident, the location of the original and the Defendant vehicle at the time of the accident, and the degree of conflict, etc., the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle neglected his duty of care to drive safely with the front bank, and the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle neglected his duty of care to drive safely at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident and caused the instant accident without discovering the Defendant vehicle which was parked in the front bank.

The plaintiff asserts that there is negligence on the defendant vehicle that obstructed the progress of the plaintiff vehicle.

However, according to the evidence revealed earlier, since the Defendant’s vehicle had already been parked in the parking area at the time of the instant accident, if the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver was safely driven while driving the vehicle in a safe manner, it is determined that the Defendant’s vehicle could sufficiently avoid the instant accident by discovering the vehicle in a timely manner and temporarily stopping or driving slowly.

Therefore, the accident of this case is entirely attributable to the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.