1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

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

B. On October 3, 2017, around 13:12 on October 3, 2017, the driver of the Defendant vehicle: (a) turned back along the passage of the vehicle at the front parking lot of the F cafeteria located in Sinjin-si E; and (b) the driver of the Defendant vehicle shocked the top left side of the Plaintiff vehicle running away from the bend parking column to the left side of the steel safe board located below the left side

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

As to the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a request for deliberation on the dispute over indemnity, and the G Deliberation Committee rendered a deliberation and resolution on deliberation at the rate of 50% of the negligence between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant decision”). D.

On October 26, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,023,40 as insurance money, such as repair cost, to the Plaintiff vehicle insured. On November 9, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 639,200 to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4-8, Eul evidence 1 (including a provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted that at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff completely stopped the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and that the Defendant’s vehicle was forced to drive on the rear side by failing to perform his duty of care to safely drive on the rear side. Thus, the Plaintiff’s negligence did not exist in the instant accident, and that the Defendant’s fault ratio should be 100%.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff vehicle had a duty of care to prevent accidents by taking into account the movement of other vehicles, and ultimately, the accident of this case occurred due to competition between the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle who failed to perform this duty and the negligence on the operation of the defendant vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff's fault ratio should be at least 30%.