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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with E, the owner of DNA (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a taxi company that carries on passenger transport business using Fsi (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around October 21, 2018, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the 58 intersection of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Seo-gu 10:10, the 58 intersection of the two-way intersection of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodae-gu, Seoul, and moved back along the way for the most inner part of the road.

At that time, the accident occurred that the front part of the driver's seat of the Plaintiff and the front part of the Defendant's driver's seat of the vehicle are facing each other (hereinafter "the accident in this case") on the wind that the Defendant's vehicle enters the same lane from the tri-distance distance of the new intersection.

C. The Plaintiff paid totaling KRW 753,700 to G Co., Ltd. on November 14, 2018 in accordance with the said automobile insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry and drawings of evidence No. 2, images of evidence No. 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The occurrence and scope of liability;

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident occurred because the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle neglected the duty of front section, right section, and concession necessary for the entry into the intersection, and thus, the Defendant as the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle is obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the repair cost to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s vehicle insurance company.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1 is that the instant accident occurred in the intersection, and both of them should be deemed to be negligent. The Defendant’s vehicle first enters the intersection, but the Plaintiff’s fault should be taken into account as the Plaintiff’s driver’s failure to secure the safety distance. 2) If the Defendant’s aforementioned fact of recognition reveals the images of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 3, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is far more than the Defendant’s vehicle.