Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with D OE vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 11:50 on April 18, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle while overtaking the Plaintiff’s vehicle during the process of making a U-turn at the 130 Bupyeong-gu funeral in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On June 5, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,830,400 (excluding KRW 200,000) as insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The following circumstances revealed in light of the evidence revealed prior to the determination as to the rate of negligence, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle was seeking a U-turn at one lane of the five-lanes of the above road in which the accident occurred, ② the Plaintiff’s vehicle could have obstructed several two-lanes of the above road in order to accelerate the speed in this process, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle continued to stay in one lane and attempted to hold a U-turn. ③ The Defendant’s vehicle continued to run in the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, ③ the Defendant’s vehicle continued to run in the front side of the vehicle and attempted to drive the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and ④ the Defendant’s vehicle, who was in the rear the U-turn, could have anticipated that the vehicle would overtake and drive the Plaintiff’s vehicle. In full view of the situation and negligence of this case, it was difficult to expect that the Defendant’s vehicle, which was in the front side of the vehicle, would have avoided shock with the Defendant’s vehicle, a rapid speed.