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 Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On August 8, 2017, around 18:27, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle into a TW-type Intersection near the government home fluoron-dong, Kui-si, Kui-si, the Government of Kui-si, and turned down the four-lanes of the four-lanes of letter.

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

On August 24, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 17,820,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 7, 9, Eul evidence 2 (including provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant vehicle should temporarily stop immediately before the crossing, and that the defendant vehicle's negligence led to 90% since it attempted to make a right of way to the plaintiff vehicle while shocking the plaintiff vehicle while trying to make a right of way, while the defendant vehicle's fault reaches 90%. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the defendant vehicle's fault is more than the defendant vehicle's fault because it was possible to recognize the defendant vehicle if it was the defendant vehicle's pre-entry duty, even if it was possible to recognize it as the defendant vehicle, and the accident of this case occurred while changing the course from the two lanes to the three lanes

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments, namely, ① the intersection is an intersection without signal, and the vehicle entering the said intersection is not all the driver of the original Defendant, even though there is no traffic signal, etc., and the vehicle entering the said intersection is not a temporary stop, and it is true that the Defendant’s vehicle’s right bypassing slowly at the instant intersection, or the Plaintiff’s vehicle is a vehicle.