1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 12:43 on July 19, 2014, a driver of the Defendant vehicle was driving the Defendant vehicle, driving the vehicle, and parking the vehicle at the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle, and then driving the vehicle at the right side of the Defendant vehicle, and driving the vehicle at the right side of the Defendant vehicle, and driving the vehicle at the right side of the Defendant vehicle, and driving the vehicle at the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle.

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

On January 30, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 294,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap's evidence 1 through 6 (including each number in the case of additional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties that the instant accident occurred from the wind that the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to drive unreasonably on the road, and that there was a negligence on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle. On the other hand, the Defendant is proceeding beyond the center line to overtake the Defendant’s vehicle which is moving behind for parking in an unreasonable manner.

Since the accident of this case occurred, the plaintiff's vehicle is responsible for total negligence.

B. The judgment of the court below is based on the negligence of the defendant vehicle who neglected to park in a way that does not interfere with the progress of parking, and the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle, who did not look at the progress of parking in a way that does not interfere with the passage of parking, even though the accident in this case, even though the defendant vehicle failed to park in a way that does not obstruct the passage of parking, even though it was aware that the preceding vehicle attempted parking.