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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

나. 2016. 9. 3. 20:50경 포항시 북구 장성동 두산위브 아파트 편도4차선 사거리 교차로에서 피고차량이 두산위브아파트 방면으로 비보호 좌회전 중 맞은 편 4차로에서 직진하던 원고차량을 충격하는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)가 발생했고, 그 충격으로 튕겨져 나간 원고차량이 C 피해차량을 들이받아 이를 파손시켰다.

C. On May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,793,120 in total as repair cost of the instant damaged vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 7

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant vehicle's fault ratio of the driver of the defendant vehicle reaches 80% since it was an accident where the driver's fault ratio reaches 80% because the defendant vehicle was an accident where the driver's left turn without making a turn even though it was a non-protective part of the non-protective part.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case is less than 60% by negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, since the driver of the plaintiff vehicle neglects his duty of care due to drinking exceeding the limit of driving and caused by violating the speed while the driver of the vehicle is working slowly and left left.

3. The left turn to the left in the area prior to the non-protective left turn-hand turn-hand turn in the opposite direction should be taken to the left-hand turn in such a way that the traffic of the directly left-hand vehicle is not obstructed by the vehicle traffic signal from the opposite direction. As such, in the instant accident where the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was under protection and left-hand turn-hand turn-hand, and the driver’s negligence of the Defendant’s driver, is greater in the instant accident.

However, the above evidence and evidence set forth in Nos. 1 to 3.