1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to pay shall be revoked and that part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

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

B. Around 05:55 on January 2, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the front gate and the front gate of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is directed toward the right side from the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, while going to the right side in the intersection in the apartment underground parking lot of the E-Attachment, at the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On January 22, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 646,600 won, deducting 200,000 won of self-paid costs for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as revealed prior to the above recognition of the negligence ratio, namely, the place where the instant accident occurred is a place where the view is restricted due to the parked vehicles and columns, etc. as an intersection in the underground parking lot. The Defendant vehicle driver who seeks to make a right of priority at the intersection of the parking lot, should have entered the intersection after checking the safety of the course by predicting the existence of the straight-in vehicle that is given a right of priority, such as the complete stop before entering the intersection or the considerable decrease of the speed, while the Plaintiff vehicle driver also entered the intersection without such measures. On the other hand, in light of the fact that it was necessary to take measures such as reducing the speed compared to the vehicle entering the intersection, the accident in question conflicts with the Plaintiff and the Defendant vehicle’s negligence.