2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile with D (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the automobile with D (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. On March 16, 2018, around 20:27, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle passed through the intersection of the G private distance in Yongsan-gu, U.S., U.S. at Seoyang-si to a straight line, and entered the same lane among the two-lane roads. At this time, the Defendant’s vehicle, who entered the two-lane road at the right line prior to the right line, was shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle, where the Defendant’s vehicle, who entered the two-lane road at the right line, was driving.

C. In the event of the foregoing traffic accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,594,500 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on April 26, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 5, 6 through 9, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, it is determined that the above traffic accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who entered the same lane as "one-lane" rather than "two-lane" while attempting to enter the two-lane road.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that at the time of the accident, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle provided the cause of the occurrence of the accident by making the driver of the vehicle enter the red signal intersection in an unreasonable manner.

However, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 8, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle shall pass through the stop line for the front green signals, enter the intersection with yellow signals, and pass through the said intersection while maintaining normal speed, and then pass through the said intersection with one lane for the second line. Thus, the defendant's argument that differs from this premise is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant is from April 27, 2018 to May 11, 2018, the delivery date of the complaint, which is the day following the payment of insurance money to the plaintiff.