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

B. On March 17, 2014, at around 19:05, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and moved directly from the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was left left left from the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the Plaintiff vehicle in front of the international apartment zone in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

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

On April 29, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 49,050,050 in total for the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost and sirens to the repair company and rental car company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or videos of Gap's evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who was shocked to left right at the center prior to entering the intersection of the plaintiff vehicle, who had entered the intersection and been normally straighted, leading to the normal right at the intersection. Therefore, the plaintiff has the right to claim the full amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle and damages for delay.

As to this, the defendant was stopping at the entrance of the intersection to turn to the left on the two-lane road, but the accident of this case occurred because the plaintiff's vehicle driving along the side road was forced to go straight, and the driver's fault ratio of the plaintiff's driver in the accident of this case is more than 30%, so the defendant exceeded the amount corresponding to the fault ratio of the driver of the defendant's vehicle.