2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant, including those resulting from the supplementary participation.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with Nonparty A and Sheet C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant with respect to the Category NFIs vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On October 3, 2015, around 16:26, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving in the direct direction of Daejeon along the private-distance intersection where there is no front signal, etc. of the Escopic Escopic in Daejeon-gu, Daejeon-do. At the time, there was an accident where the fronter of the Defendant’s vehicle entering the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the intersection on the right side of the running direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,759,670 at the cost of parts and repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence or video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s negligence constitutes 60% or more on the ground that the Plaintiff’s vehicle confirmed that the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not pass at the intersection of the instant accident place, and nearly passed through the intersection by entering the intersection. Since Defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection at the latest thereafter and shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that, in the case of an intersection in which traffic control is not performed, when there are other vehicles seeking to enter the intersection from a wide road, the width should yield the course to the other vehicles. Therefore, the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle is more than 70%.

B. The facts acknowledged earlier and the following facts acknowledged by each of the aforementioned evidence are followed by the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is, the Defendant’s vehicle almost passed the intersection.