1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 13, 2013, at the time of Ansan-si, the network C driven a DNA car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) in the vicinity of the Mangyeong-dong, Mangyeong-gu, Mangyang-si, Annyang-si, and caused a traffic accident listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. At the time of the instant accident, the E-Wed vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) was parked in the zone where the vehicle was prohibited from parking adjacent to the intersection.

C. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the foregoing vehicle, and the Defendants are C’s successors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that there is no proximate causal relation between the parking of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the occurrence of the instant accident, and that there is no obligation to pay the Plaintiff’s damages to the Defendants regarding the instant accident.

According to the records and images of Gap evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the degree of damage to the plaintiff's automobile caused by the accident in this case is insignificant as the level of damage to the plaintiff's automobile, and the defendant's vehicle's moving path itself seems to have a low possibility of affecting the plaintiff's vehicle.

However, according to the evidence, the location where the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff is parked falls under the front section in the direction of 12 cc prior to the left-hand turn of the vehicle on the part of the defendant, and there are several concrete structures in the yellow, the form of test reduction, the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff was parked in the above structure as a test color, and in light of the time of the occurrence of the accident in this case, if the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff was not parked on the site, the driver of the vehicle on the part of the defendant seems to have been assisted in recognizing the road shape through concrete structure, and such recognition is hindered due to the parking of the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff.