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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. With respect to A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 4, 2016, around 20:45, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the two-lane road near the Hamsan-dong, Hamsan-dong, Hamsan-si. However, when the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle enters the road, which is a road wider than the right edge of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, along the course of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the driver entered the road, which is the right edge of the right edge of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, there was an accident that sees the part behind the right edge of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the right edge of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". On the other hand, traffic control was not conducted at the location of the accident of this case, and the concession sign was installed.

C. On December 16, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the insured totaling KRW 949,000,00,000 as insurance money due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 949,000 to the Plaintiff with the amount of indemnity paid by the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred between the negligence that the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not yield to the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection and the negligence that the Defendant’s driver did not yield to the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection, while entering the intersection at the center of the intersection, using the center inside the intersection, and entering the intersection, and the two-lanes. It is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio is at least 30%:70%. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff only within the scope of 70%, which is the negligence ratio of the Defendant’s driver.

3. Determination

(a) The driver of any motor vehicle intends to make a right-hand turn to the intersection;