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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C-wheeled Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D-Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 18, 2018, around 09:05, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding in violation of an intersection near Busan Northern-gu E in the direction of Gmapt from the F bank to the Gmaart bank. The Plaintiff’s vehicle collision with the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection according to the progress signal, resulting in the Plaintiff’s driver (hereinafter “victim”).

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

Until May 31, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,797,000 in total with the medical expenses and the amount agreed upon for the victims of the instant case in accordance with the automobile insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident overlaps with the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that the Defendant had already entered the intersection and the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Plaintiff acquired the right to indemnity against the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the fault ratio (10%) of the Defendant vehicle out of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff as damages.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who entered the intersection by violating the signal.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence revealed above, the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident was stopping in the vicinity of the immediately preceding crosssection, among the vehicles located in the same lane, and even after the alteration of the Defendant’s running signal to the straighten signal.