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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to BS5 automobiles owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to C cab (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On August 6, 2013, around 17:10 on August 6, 2013, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding a sloping-type intersection in front of the Bamamban-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, along with D-sections from the amban-type bank, followed by collision with the Defendant’s vehicle running the same intersection from the right side to the left side of the E-driving, and rehacked the pedestrian F, which was pushing ahead of the front road with the shock.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,917,100, and KRW 2,318,600 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 10, 11, 13 through 16, Eul evidence No. 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties that the instant accident was caused by the principal negligence of the Defendant’s driver and sought reimbursement of the amount equivalent to 60% of the amount of reimbursement.

The defendant asserts that the accident of this case was wholly caused by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, and that there was no negligence on the driver of the defendant vehicle.

3. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the images of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 8, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8, the vehicle signal is installed in the direction of the proceeding of the defendant vehicle in the instant intersection, but the vehicle signal is not installed in the direction of the plaintiff vehicle. The driver of the plaintiff vehicle A reported that the vehicle on the direction of the proceeding is stopped by the vehicle on the side of the direction of the proceeding, and the driver of the defendant vehicle E did not stop even though the vehicle signal is red.