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

The purport of the claim and the appeal shall be 1.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”), with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle C, and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On February 2, 2019, when the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle walked in the upstream of the upper East-dong, Sincheon-si from the offside of the E apartment site to the right-hand turn signal, the driver violated the above signal while entering the intersection and driving at the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle due to a collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving at the right-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

(c)

After the occurrence of the instant accident, until April 10, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,002,210 to the Plaintiff’s driver who suffered injury due to the instant accident, with medical expenses and the amount agreed upon.

【Ground of recognition】 The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle driving along the intersection in violation of the signal, and therefore, the defendant's fault ratio of the accident in this case is 80%. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle driving along the crosswalk where the driver's driver is prohibited from driving the bicycle in the crosswalk while driving along the crosswalk in violation of the signal signal range of the crosswalk, and therefore, the accident in this case is a whole negligence of the plaintiff.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and each of the above evidence, i.e., the Defendant’s driver, in violation of the signal at the instant intersection after the yellow signal has already been changed to the left turn turn.