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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, at around 14:00 on September 27, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of collision to the intersection near the Dobong-gu Seoul apartment at the location of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle CD and around 14:00 on September 27, 2018, left the two-lanes of the intersection between the two-lanes of the intersection of this case where the signal was installed only in the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s proceeding. The Defendant vehicle left the front side of the Defendant vehicle and the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle at the instant intersection with the direction of the vehicle’s proceeding, and accordingly, the left side of the Defendant vehicle was shocked. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s vehicle and shock with the third vehicle of this case, the insurance money paid 4,123,300

B. The judgment of the first instance court judged the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 0:100, and calculated the Plaintiff’s amount of reimbursement as 4,123,300 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of evidence A1 to 6

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred by entering the instant intersection without properly examining the movement of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s motion was driven along the instant intersection where the signal was installed only in the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle was ordinarily straight in accordance with the instant signal. As such, the instant accident was entirely caused by the Defendant’s fault.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the images of evidence A2 and 3, i.e., ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle, prior to entering the instant intersection, appears to have reduced the speed by using a letter sign installed in the direction of the passage, and was straighten by entering the instant intersection according to the progress signal. The Plaintiff’s vehicle merely appears to have proceeded at a speed above 30 kilometers per hour, which is the speed limit at the time.