1. On September 27, 2017, around 03:20, it is used for B business owned by Daeju-si on the road in front of the Suwon-dong Park in Busan-gu.

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to B-si vehicles owned by Dae Changsi Tax Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Vehicle”).

B. On September 27, 2017, at around 03:20, the Defendant loaded a liveer vehicle owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) that was parked in excess of the center line of one-lane road in front of the Suwon-dong Park, Suwon-gu, Busan (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). On the top of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle running the opposite vehicle, the Defendant was faced with the Defendant’s right trees (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. After the instant accident, on September 27, 2017, the Defendant was diagnosed at D Hospital located in Suwon-gu in Busan, and was diagnosed at D Hospital located in Busan, E in Busan, the Busan, and was diagnosed at E Hospital located in Busan, the right legine.

The Defendant received one day from D Hospital around September 27, 2017; 12 days from September 27, 2017 to November 10, 2017 at E Hospital; and 14 days from Oct. 6, 2017 to Oct. 21, 2017 to Oct. 21, 2017 from Fuwon in Busan Shipping Daegu.

After the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 718,069 in full according to the Defendant’s receipt of the accident.

[Judgment of the court below] Whether there was no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1, 3-1, 4-1, and all pleadings

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the overall purport of the argument that incurred prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, the instant accident occurred at the time and place of loading and unloading of active vehicles, and it appears that it would have been anticipated that the work of loading and unloading, etc. was carried out on the 2nd cost of truck, including the Defendant vehicle, while stopping at the same time and at the same time, including the Defendant vehicle. However, the Plaintiff vehicle driver C was negligent in neglecting it even though it had been done more carefully than ordinary cases, even though it had been done.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's vehicle is less than the speed limit.