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 concluded an automobile insurance contract on behalf of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract on behalf of the B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 14:30 on September 8, 2013, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was running directly along the two-lanes of the two-lane road near the Incheon Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City along the two-lanes of the Defendant vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle went ahead of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to go back to the right side in order to turn back to the two-lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed ahead of the vehicle to turn back to the two-lanes, and there was an accident of conflict between the two-lanes of the C vehicle (hereinafter “victimd vehicle”) and the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,845,800 (the amount corresponding to 40% of the total repair cost) as insurance proceeds, excluding the amount guaranteed by the Defendant, out of the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, as the result of an agreement with the Defendant on the rate of fault in the occurrence of the instant accident.

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

2. The fact that the Defendant’s vehicle, prior to the Plaintiff’s two-lanes, went away from the right side of the front side of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and attempted to return it again to the two-lanes, is the same as seen earlier. In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant’s vehicle went out of the front side of the front side of the two-lanes, and attempted to return the vehicle rapidly to the second two-lane. In this case, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was going back at the rear side of the two-lanes, and the Defendant’s vehicle, attempting to re-enter the safety zone between the front lane and the normal lane, can be recognized.