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.The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in each entry or video set forth in Gap evidence 2, 3, and Eul evidence 3 to 5 (including the branch numbers in which the serial numbers are attached) by reference to the overall purport of the pleadings:

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B with respect to the vehicle owned by B (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”).

B. Around 10:20 on August 10, 2014, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and went to the ground from the Switzerland-2-dong Sejong apartment underground parking lot to the ground and went to the entrance of the above underground parking lot, and conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle who entered the above underground parking lot on the ground.

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

On August 18, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 143,400 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The accident of this case is due to the negligence of both parties, and the defendant is liable to the amount equivalent to the fault ratio (50%) of the driver of the defendant vehicle, since the accident of this case conflicts with the defendant vehicle that affected the central line while entering the underground parking lot while the plaintiff vehicle gets off the ground from the underground parking lot and driving over the central line.

B. The Defendant’s vehicle did not intrude the central line, and the instant accident was caused by the Plaintiff’s total negligence by the Plaintiff’s driver who driven the central line by breaking the central line on the ground at an underground parking lot.

3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the images of evidence No. 6 and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, along with the opposite lane exceeding the center line. On the other hand, the front wheels part of the Defendant’s vehicle did not intrude the center line, but only part of the rear wheels part was the center line.