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

The purport and purport of the appeal [the purport of the appeal]

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

B. On August 27, 2019, around 10:00, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the intersection near Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the left-hand intersection, and the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection on the right-hand side, where an accident of collision occurred (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On October 8, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 229,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (the Plaintiff’s own charge of KRW 200,000) and applied for the deliberation and adjustment of the amount of indemnity against the Defendant to the F Deliberation Committee organized under the mutual agreement (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”).

(d)

On December 16, 2019, the Review Committee rendered a decision to coordinate the deliberation on the content that the ratio of the negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle to the instant accident is 50:50 (hereinafter “the instant decision”). The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not file a petition for review or file a lawsuit by the closing date ( January 9, 2020) and became final and conclusive as they were.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle entered the intersection as a straight-line vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle invaded the virtual center line in the intersection with the left-hand vehicle.

Therefore, in the instant accident, the fault ratio of the Defendant vehicle should be at least 70%.

B. According to each of the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is a private street crossing with no signal, etc., and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a straight line from the upper road tunnel to the G apartment room, Defendant’s vehicle was in a straight line from H apartment to the I apartment room, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle is deemed to have been in a very advanced progress. However, the Defendant’s vehicle is also a right-hand road and passing along the intersection.