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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with the Defendant’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On January 4, 2017, around 01:49, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered a two-lane of the two-lanes from the 11-lane in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Yeongdeungpo-gu, to the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the left side of the Defendant vehicle, while driving in the front line due to a traffic accident that occurred in the front line while driving from the front line to the 11-lane in the front line. The Defendant vehicle shocked the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the right side of the Defendant vehicle from the left side of the direction where the Plaintiff vehicle proceeds.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On February 3, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance money equivalent to KRW 991,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), assertion of the parties to the whole pleadings

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident is an accident caused by one’s negligence on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle’s fault, which led to an unreasonable progress between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the lower side of the vehicle. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the total insurance money of KRW 991,00,000 and the damages for delay thereof.

B. The Defendant’s instant accident occurred when the Plaintiff’s vehicle was changed from a two-lane to a one-lane due to a traffic accident that occurred in the front section, and thus, the Defendant’s negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that changed its course is at least 50% without verifying the flow of the vehicle on the two-lane, and without securing the safety distance.

Judgment

The above facts of recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 7, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.