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 an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle A and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was following the Defendant’s vehicle in the same direction, was on the three-lane road in front of the southwest, and on the two-lane road from the two-lane to the one-lane road, shocked between the front door on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the rear left door.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On January 5, 2015, the committee for deliberation on indemnity disputes decided the rate of negligence between the plaintiff and the defendant to 70% and 30% in consideration of the situation of the accident and the shockion. D.

On January 27, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 1,010,090 to the Defendant as insurance money for the instant accident.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 or 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident is an accident caused by contact with the Plaintiff’s vehicle during the Defendant’s vehicle crossing a safety zone and overtaking the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff 1,010,090 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 29, 2015 to the delivery date of the duplicate of the instant complaint, which is the day following the payment date, from January 29, 2015 to the day of the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

The written evidence Nos. 1 through 3 alone is sufficient to recognize that the instant accident occurred while the Defendant’s vehicle drives a safety zone like the Plaintiff’s assertion and overtakes the Plaintiff’s vehicle.