The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On May 24, 2019, around 13:10 on May 24, 2019, at the front parking lot of the Seo-gu, Busan, U.S. E apartment-dong, there was an accident that conflicts between the part on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was parked along the parking zone, and the part on the back side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the parking lot to the right side from the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle standard (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On June 19, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 132,200,00, after deducting 200,000 of the self-paid cost, out of KRW 332,200,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5 through 8, 11-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident verified that the Defendant’s vehicle was parked at a slow speed, but the Defendant’s vehicle was protruding to the Plaintiff’s own in the future and shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The accident of this case is due to the total negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.

B. (1) In light of the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident and the location of each vehicle and the degree of collision, which can be seen by the evidence revealed prior to the occurrence of the liability for damages, the instant accident began in the front section of the parking zone in the direction of the Plaintiff, and there were other vehicles parked in the opposite parking lot having 2 to 3 meters away from the parking zone, and thus, the Defendant’s vehicle driving ahead of the parking zone after the completion of parking. However, the Plaintiff’s driver, who proceeded to the right side of the parking zone passage before the Defendant’s vehicle finished parking.