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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

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

B. On March 7, 2019, at around 10:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle tried to make a right-hand turn to the intersection while proceeding along the two-lane road in front of the F in the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu. However, there was an accident that conflicts between the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was moving straight back from the rear of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the second lane, and the rear part of the right-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On March 27, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 965,00,000, deducting the self-charges 241,000, as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle for the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred in violation of the duty of securing safety distance and the method of overtaking the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not make a right-hand attempt, the instant accident occurred, which led the Defendant’s vehicle to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, the instant accident occurred due to the principal fault of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Therefore, at least 80% of the negligence ratio of the defendant vehicle shall be increased.

B. While the Defendant’s assertion was proceeding along the two-lane, the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to make a right-hand turn to the left at the first lane, and the instant accident occurred, and there was no possibility of avoiding the instant accident to the Defendant’s driver.

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court in this case is justifiable with the ratio of negligence of the defendant vehicle to 30%.

C. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the foregoing macroscopic evidence, i.e., the road where the instant accident occurred, which is a two-lane.