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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around 13:00 on August 28, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was travelling along five lanes near the Tri-gu FF Bank T, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, in order to make a right-hand turn to the alleys located on the right-hand side of the said road. At that time, the Defendant’s vehicle driving the four-lane of the said road was waiting for a right-hand turn to enter the said alleys, and there was an accident that conflicts with the fronter and fences of the Defendant’s right-hand side and the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left-hand side with the fronter and fences.

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

On September 11, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 817,400,00, after deducting the self-charges 204,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the aforementioned comprehensive automobile insurance contract.

The judgment of the court of first instance judged the fault ratio of the defendant vehicle as 100%, and calculated the amount of the plaintiff's indemnity as 1,021,400 won after deducting 204,000 won for the insured of the plaintiff vehicle from the plaintiff's claim amount of 1,021,40 won.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of evidence A1 to 4, Eul 1 and 3

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The defendant's assertion that the accident in this case, which was stopped for the right-hand transfer at the site of the accident in this case, conflict with the defendant's vehicle that was by the right-on-way after the right-on-way departure, although the plaintiff's vehicle that was stopped should be seen as safe inspection of the progress of the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff's fault ratio

B. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the video of the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff’s vehicle tried to make a round to the alleys located on the right side of the above five-lanes of the road, and the Defendant’s vehicle was waiting due to the preceding vehicle.