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

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to Dsi (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On August 2, 2019, around 18:18, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the road of the front direction of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-do into three-lanes from the boundary of the driver’s license test site to the corner of the valley. In order to change the lane from four-lanes to three-lanes, the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked into the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

On August 16, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,214,010 (excluding KRW 200,000 on its own charges) as insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that, while the defendant's vehicle is waiting for a signal signal signaling over the three-lane and four-lanes, the previous vehicle was stopped as it was stopped even though the signal of the running direction was changed to the signal going to the stop signal. The plaintiff's vehicle was waiting to yield the course to the defendant's vehicle while parked on the three-lane side of the defendant's vehicle, but the vehicle was waiting to move on the three-lane, but the defendant's vehicle was not driving on the three-lane, and the accident of this case occurred while the vehicle was proceeding without looking at the movement of the surrounding vehicle at the latest, while the vehicle was going on the three-lane. Thus, the fault ratio of the defendant's vehicle is at least 60%.

2) As to this, the Defendant stopped the Defendant’s vehicle for the signal waiting and proceeded in accordance with the new code, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle is the wind to change its course to the course of the Plaintiff’s own three-lanes.