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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a motor vehicle insurance contract with D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 13, 2018, around 18:36, an accident occurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle on the fourth line road (hereinafter “instant road”) near the Sinpo-dong, Young-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant road”).

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

On December 17, 2018, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for deliberation and mediation of the indemnity fee dispute deliberation committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Deliberation Committee”), and on December 17, 2018, the Deliberation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Deliberation Committee”), determined the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle to 80:20, taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was changed in course from the distance adjacent to the intersection, and that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was changed in course from the distance adjacent to the intersection.

On January 3, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 2,310,400 won at the cost of repairing the Defendant’s vehicle equivalent to 80% of the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and filed the instant lawsuit on January 9, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (which include numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred while the plaintiff's vehicle was driving in the three-lanes of the four-lanes of the road in this case, and since the defendant's vehicle driven in the four-lanes was moving in the middle to three-lanes in the vicinity, the defendant's vehicle was at fault of 80% for the defendant's driver.

In regard to this, the defendant, the accident of this case, which was carried out by the defendant, was in the direct driving according to the four-lanes, and the plaintiff's vehicle, who was driven in the three-lane, was in an unreasonable way in the vicinity of the road.