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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and with respect to the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. At around 15:00 on August 30, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle waiting at the entrance of the Seogdog-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, to a TW-type intersection, and confirmed that there was no vehicle driving in the front line, and that there was an accident where the Defendant’s vehicle, who was driving in the front line at a considerable speed as above, was entering the non-protection left-hand turn at the said intersection due to the slowly, led to the instant accident where the Defendant’s vehicle, who was driving in the middle line at a considerable speed as above (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. On September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,042,980 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case was caused by the failure of the defendant's vehicle, which affected the accident of this case, while entering the left-hand turn on the right-hand side of the plaintiff's vehicle, due to a considerable speed of the defendant's vehicle and shock of the plaintiff's vehicle.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection, did not properly look at the front left and then entered the intersection at the latest, and the accident of this case occurred by entering the said intersection. Thus, even if the Defendant’s vehicle was negligent in violating the duty of safe driving, its percentage is within 10%.

B. In light of the above facts, the accident of this case is due to the fact that the defendant's vehicle has entered the lane on the left side of the direction in the case of TW Intersection, and the accident of this case is due to the fact that there is a vehicle entering the lane on the left side of the direction in the case of TW intersection. However, the accident of this case is not due to