1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

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

B. At around 18:10 on June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was entering the underground parking lot of the Goington apartment in Yang-gu, Yang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yanging the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding on the right side of the running direction of the Plaintiff vehicle, and the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle that was proceeding on the right side of the driving direction of the Plaintiff vehicle, and the front part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle was destroyed.

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

On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,200,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The following circumstances revealed by the occurrence of liability for damages and the ratio of liability, and the evidence revealed by the above recognition, namely, it was difficult for the driver and the driver of the original and the defendant vehicle to have the view of the other party to the vehicle parked on the front side of the driver's seat of the vehicle at the time of the accident in this case. Nevertheless, the driver of the original and the defendant vehicle was negligent in performing the duty of safe driving, such as temporary suspension in front of the above intersection before the above intersection, and the accident in this case occurred. The two roads of the above underground parking lot are wide to the extent that the two roads of the above underground parking lot are able to pass along, and the center line formed by the boundary of floor materials appeared to have been operated along the above center line, unlike the plaintiff vehicle, and the defendant vehicle entered the intersection at a very rapid speed compared to the plaintiff vehicle.