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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. On August 18, 2015, the Defendant driven a CA car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) on August 17, 2015, and avoided the three-lanes of the 3-lanes of the west-gu Incheon Nam-gu Twit-dong west to the sand internal market station from the west-gu west-distance to the west-do west-gu west-do west-do west-do west-do west-do, Incheon, along the three-lanes of the lower part of the Plaintiff’s driving, who entered the third-lanes from the 119 Safety Center to the left left-hand turn from the sand internal market (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) to the left-hand side of the Defendant vehicle.

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

As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged to be in excess of KRW 1,724,00 for repair costs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, Eul 1, 3, 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

3. Limitation on liability; and

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s negligence was 100% since the Plaintiff’s neglect of the duty to keep the right at the intersection and shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle left left to the left pursuant to the new code, and thus, the Defendant’s fault is 100%. (2) The Plaintiff’s negligence was 10% since the instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff violated the intersection signal

(b) Where all drivers of vehicles concerned intend to make a right-hand turn at the intersection, they shall proceed slowly along the right-hand edge of the road in advance (Article 25 (1) of the Road Traffic Act), and where they intend to make a right-hand turn at the intersection, they shall go slowly along the median line of the road in advance and turn to the left at the center of the intersection;

(Article 25 (2) (c) of the Road Traffic Act.

Judgment

In other words, the signal apparatus at the intersection of the Plaintiff’s driving direction at the time of the instant accident was sent to the left-hand turn in full view of the overall purport of the oral argument as seen above, and therefore, the opposite direction would be Madju in the opposite direction.