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

B. On December 21, 2017, at around 13:55, the Plaintiff’s vehicle turned straight along three lanes at the private distance intersection of the Korean Bank of Korea, the Cheong-dong, the Cheong-si, the Cheong-dong, the Cheong-dong, the Cheong-dong, the Cheong-dong, the Seoul Metropolitan City, along the three-lanes of the private street intersection of the Korean National Bank. The lower part of the Defendant’s right side

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

On February 7, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,404,680 as insurance money for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The driver of any motor vehicle passing through a road shall follow the instruction indicated by the traffic safety facilities (Article 5 (1) of the Road Traffic Act), and shall not change course of the motor vehicle at a place where any change in route is specially prohibited by safety signs (Article 14 (5) of the same Act), and shall not change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which the change is intended in cases of changing course of the motor vehicle (Article 19 (3) of the same Act). In addition, in cases where the driver of any motor vehicle intends to make a right-hand way at an intersection, he/she shall go slowly along the right-hand side of the road

(Article 25(1) of the same Act. In full view of the foregoing basic facts and the overall purport of the arguments, the following facts or circumstances, namely, the location of the instant accident, where a road sign restricting career changes, the Defendant’s vehicle was bypassed at the two-lanes of the three-lanes, and the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle ought to view the truck subsequent to the Defendant’s vehicle.