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 each automobile insurance contract with respect to D (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the rocketing vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”).

B. At around 17:42 on July 12, 2019, the driver of the Defendant vehicle parked in the parking lot for the first floor of the department department E in Gangseo-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, with the front door of the Plaintiff vehicle, which opened a bend door and arranged it, shocked the front door of the Defendant vehicle into the right side of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On July 24, 2019, the Plaintiff paid repair costs of KRW 1,389,50 (excluding self-charges of KRW 200,000) to the Plaintiff vehicle insured as insurance proceeds.

With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a claim for deliberation of the car insurance dispute, and the FF Committee deliberated on and decided that the ratio of liability to the instant accident is 30% on the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 70% on the Defendant’s vehicle.

The Plaintiff appealed and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

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 did not comply with the duty of care to drive safely by checking the rear side, and that the Plaintiff’s driver did not have any negligence on the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the instant accident, and that the Defendant’s fault ratio should be 100%.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle has a duty of care to prevent the accident by examining the movement of other vehicles because the plaintiff's vehicle has opened a door and arranged the side parking zone outside of the parking zone, and therefore, the plaintiff's non-performance of this duty is at fault of 50%.

B. Therefore, according to the facts charged, the above facts and the evidence as seen earlier, the instant case is examined.