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 entered into an automobile insurance contract with the owner of the D vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the owner of the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 16, 2019, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was going through the intersection in front of the G Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Road located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, pursuant to the new subparagraph on the road, it was shocked with the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection on the side on which the left side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is not signaled.

C. On April 29, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,831,740 (excluding KRW 200,000 of its own charges) to the Plaintiff’s repair business entity equivalent to the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact of recognition, since the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is obligated to compensate the owner of the plaintiff vehicle for damages equivalent to the repair cost. Since the plaintiff paid the insurance money and acquired by subrogation the right to claim damages against the defendant by the owner of the plaintiff vehicle, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount according to the ratio of liability of the

On the other hand, the following circumstances revealed by the above facts of recognition, Gap evidence No. 8, Eul evidence No. 1, and Eul evidence No. 1, that are, the location of the accident is an intersection with a road without signal lights. However, the situation where the left-hand turn of the plaintiff's vehicle at the time of the accident was not properly secured for the vehicle entering the intersection due to the left-hand turn of the waiting vehicle at the time of the accident, and the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle did not look at whether the vehicle enters the intersection from the left-hand side or not.