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 concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the A-Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the B-Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendants”).

B. On July 30, 2012, around 16:00, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the alleyway in front of the Madan Mad-ro, the 168-ro, Mad-ro, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, and caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

The Plaintiff paid KRW 332,400 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number, if any), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff stopped the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff while the vehicle on the part of the defendant stopped to yield, and caused the damage to the plaintiff's vehicle due to the error, and the accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle on the part of the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff who stopped while the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff's side was stopped by the plaintiff's vehicle on the side of the plaintiff's vehicle on the side of the plaintiff

3. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments in each statement of Gap evidence and Gap evidence Nos. 6 to 10 (including each serial number), the size of the plaintiff's vehicle is 175.5 cm, the width of the defendant's vehicle is 174 cm, the location of the accident site is 360 cm on both sides of the road, and the width between telegraph poles is 360 cm, and the fact that the vehicle was placed in the shape of the front right-hand part of the plaintiff's vehicle's right-hand headlight and the front right-hand part of the road. Thus, even if the plaintiff's vehicle was damaged as above during the course of driving, it is difficult to deem that the defendant's driver violated his duty of care.