1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport:

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. At around 16:00 on August 2, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the front corner of the left corner of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding on the opposite part, and the rear part of the left corner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, in the underground parking lot of the building located in Yellow-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

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

On August 30, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,344,00,00, excluding self-paid KRW 336,000, at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers) or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle is more than 60%, as the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked with the Defendant’s vehicle rapidly proceeding in the opposite part while operating the passage in the underground parking lot at low speed.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust the center line of the passage in the underground parking lot, while the instant accident occurred.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings as seen earlier, are, i.e., (i) even if it is based on the black stuff image (Evidence Nos. 1 and 6) taken at the time of the instant accident, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s vehicle: (a) carried a bend line with the center line in the underground parking lot; and (b) the Defendant’s vehicle proceeded with the center line in the presence of the center line; and (c) based on the Defendant’s front box image (Evidence No. 6) taken after the instant accident, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the center line.