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. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On February 9, 2018, at around 11:30, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded along a one-way road without the front line of the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Y-dong community service center, and left the left, and finds out and stops down the Defendant’s vehicle moving back from the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while entering the three-lanes (hereinafter “instant road”). However, the Defendant’s vehicle continued to go back and fell down on the rear part of the left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On March 6, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,240,00,000, after deducting self-paid expenses for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, as insurance proceeds.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul's evidence, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident was an inevitable accident that caused the Plaintiff’s shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which caused the sudden breakdown of the Defendant’s vehicle and waiting, and thus, the Defendant’s negligence ought to be deemed as 100%.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 4,240,000 won and damages for delay, which are the full amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

B. At the time of the accident of this case, the defendant did not enter the public parking lot on the right side of the road of this case and instead did not enter the vehicle, and instead, did not enter the vehicle in the street parking zone, and the vehicle of this case conflicts with the defendant's vehicle that entered the three-lane without entering the first lane in violation of the method of left turn as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act while making a left turn and entered the three-lane, so the defendant is entitled to pay the plaintiff from the indemnity amount to