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 A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 16, 2016, around 18:15, on the road in front of the DMasan store located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Masan-si (hereinafter “instant accident”) caused an accident involving collision between the front wheeler and penter of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the left side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 320,860 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The accident location of the Plaintiff’s assertion was two lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was left straight on the first line, which is the left-hand turn, by avoiding the illegally parked vehicles at night. The instant accident occurred in the course of the Defendant’s vehicle going back to the intersection, following the Defendant’s vehicle going ahead of the Plaintiff’s previous vehicle by entering the intersection at the latest.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case is 50%, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the ratio of negligence to the plaintiff who acquired the claim for indemnity under the insurer subrogation doctrine under Article 682 of the Commercial Act by paying the insurance money under the name of the

B. In light of the judgment, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that there was any negligence on the part of the Defendant vehicle driver in proceeding with the point of the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, as recognized in full view of the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped on the first left-hand turn, despite the ongoing signal, and the Defendant’s vehicle is the vehicle.