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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 6:20 on May 25, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle was located in the intersection of the 3rd intersection of the scholarship Myeon-dong, Cheongcheon-si, Gancheon-si, the part of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the driver’s seat on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was located on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, was shocked by the front front part of the

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On June 22, 2015, with respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,061,750 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the party's assertion 1) The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case was caused by the violation of the direction from the first lane, which is the left-hand exclusive road, while the defendant's vehicle is driving on a three-lane road. Therefore, the defendant's mistake was entirely caused by the defendant's driver's fault. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should pay to the plaintiff the full amount of the insurance money and damages for delay paid by the plaintiff with the indemnity amount. The defendant is the defendant's vehicle driving road in the place where the accident occurred, the vehicle is the plaintiff's driving road, and the vehicle is the plaintiff's driving road, and as long as the defendant's vehicle has entered the intersection prior to the plaintiff's vehicle, the vehicle of this case caused the accident of this case due to the negligence that the plaintiff did not yield the lane, even though the vehicle of this case

B. The following circumstances, i.e., the road in which the Defendant’s vehicle immediately before the accident was located, based on comprehensive consideration of the aforementioned evidence, are as follows: