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 concluded each comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the A-Wz vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the B-Wz vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On July 20, 2014, at around 17:40, the Defendant’s vehicle proceeded from 19 side to 18 side of the side of the side of the Dong apartment complex in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, with a road located in the 19-dong apartment complex, and entered the 18-dong and 21-dong and the front side of the 21-dong and the 19-dong side of the 21-dong side of the 21-dong road, and the Defendant’s vehicle, who entered the said intersection, was able to see the part of the front side of the Plaintiff’s front side of the driver’s driver’s license on the upper side of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On February 13, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,500,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On the other hand, on June 30, 2015, the defendant succeeding intervenor succeeded to the status of the insurance contract concerning the defendant's vehicle from the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to negligence by the defendant's driver's failure to perform the duty of pre-fiscence in drinking condition while the plaintiff's vehicle entered the above intersection. Thus, the defendant's successor intervenor is obligated to pay 10,50,000 won of indemnity equivalent to the above repair cost and its delay damages to the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle entered the above intersection at the same time, the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle should be considered as 40%.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the said intersection beyond the stop line and completed the entry of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is as follows.