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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

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

B. On February 2, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the above vehicle at around 21:25, while driving the two-lanes of the three-lane road adjacent to Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant road”) into the Cheongdo basin, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle turned on emergency lights on the upper right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was stopped at the front right side of the front right side, and shocked the part between the rear wheels and the left side side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the front right side and the front part.

Plaintiff

In the process of putting a vehicle into a three-lane after the shock, the driver of the vehicle, while driving in a three-lane and turning an emergency, etc. on the front section of the defendant vehicle, and putting the vehicle into a front of the vehicle in a stop (hereinafter referred to as "non-standing vehicle"), he/she reconvened with the right-hand border.

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

On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,121,400 in total to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

On the other hand, at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle used emergency lights to handle separate traffic accidents that occurred with the Nonparty’s vehicle prior to the instant accident, and was stopped on the third-lane of the instant road.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence No. 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped is going to a right-hand approach at the front of the entrance, the Defendant’s driver should have stopped or taken appropriate measures for safety in a way that does not impede the traffic of the vehicle prior to the right-hand, even if the vehicle was temporarily stopped for dealing with the accident.