2...

A. As to the E-vehicle owned by D and D (hereinafter “Plaintiff-vehicle”), the Defendant is the insurer who concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to F vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant-vehicle”).

B. On November 16, 2019, around 08:44, 2019, B, who is the husband of D and the named insured, was at the intersection of private distance in front of the off-dong sub-fluoring centrality of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle was at the right shoulderer and the penter and the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which were left behind the left side of the vehicle, were faced with each other.

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

On November 22, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,322,140 (excluding self-paid KRW 500,000) for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to Gap 6, Gap 8, Eul 1 to Eul 4 (Evidence with Serial Nos. 1 to Eul 4) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each evidence invoked in the preceding paragraph before determining the claim, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Defendant vehicle.

o B was driven ahead of the intersection and going through the intersection in front of the intersection, and only when it was done immediately before the accident occurred, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was opened to the view of the Defendant’s driver. However, it appears to be due to the fact that the vehicle installed on the right side of the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle to run away from the view of the Defendant’s driver’s view. On the ground of the foregoing o’s preceding paragraph, the Defendant’s driver, as the driver of the vehicle, has a duty of care to confirm the existence of the vehicle to enter the intersection by lowering the speed, but it is still difficult to reduce the speed.