1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

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. On March 29, 2015, C around 15:25, around the six-lane road near Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, parked the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the public parking space near the six-lane road, and subsequently, C opened the driver’s seat in order to drive the vehicle. When E (hereinafter referred to as “small and medium-lane vehicle”) was changed rapidly into five-lanes in order to avoid the shock with C, the FF vehicle driven behind the five-lane (hereinafter referred to as “victimd vehicle”) was suddenly suspended from driving on the five-lane road. Accordingly, the Defendant’s vehicle driving behind the five-lane road did not reach the subsequent half-lane, but failed to take a sudden brake measure.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The Defendant paid KRW 31,759,700 in total to the Plaintiff for the medical expenses, agreed fees, repair expenses, etc. of victimized vehicle drivers, etc. due to the instant accident, and filed a claim for reimbursement with respect to the amount equivalent to 70% of the total amount. The Plaintiff paid KRW 3,175,950 in total to the Defendant on February 12, 2016, according to the decision of the Deliberation Committee on the Settlement of Automobile Claims that recognized the ratio of negligence between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle: 1:9.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the driver C of the Plaintiff’s vehicle opened a driver’s seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle prior to arrival of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff provided the cause of the instant accident by changing the vehicle line to five lanes on his own, although it was possible for Nonparty C to find out the lower vehicle of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in advance, and the Defendant’s vehicle is based on the damaged vehicle.