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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 24, 2019, around 12:27, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding along a road of six meters wide from the center line located in Ulsan-gu E, Ulsan-gu without any signal, and entered the private-distance intersection where no signal, etc. is installed, the Plaintiff’s vehicle followed the Defendant’s right-hand part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which proceeded with the private distance by 7 meters wide from the center line located in the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s driving direction, to the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On February 1, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,960,000 as insurance money, excluding KRW 489,000, out of total damages, such as the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred on each road where the width of the road is not substantially different, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle entered the private road at a rapid speed. As such, the Plaintiff’s accident occurred while entering the intersection at the same time as the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As such, the Plaintiff’s fault should be considered to exceed 80% by recognizing the Plaintiff’s priority on the right-hand side at the time of the instant accident. As to this, the Defendant entered the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, as well as the Defendant’s prior access to the intersection at the central line, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection at a correct speed from the small line without the central line, and led to the subsequent shock of the Defendant’s vehicle that almost passed through the intersection, so the Plaintiff’s fault caused the Plaintiff’s fault.