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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with Nonparty C regarding the automobile owned by Nonparty C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) from November 26, 2018 to November 26, 2019, and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile owned by Nonparty C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

On February 14, 2019, at around 10:24, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is driving along the two-lane road in front of G store located in the YF of Busan, and the Defendant’s vehicle, which was located in the route connected to the right side of the road, intends to turn to the right to the right to the right to the opposite direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and shocked from the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the back one.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). On February 21, 2019, the Plaintiff spent KRW 1,880,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, is shocking with the Plaintiff’s vehicle that the Defendant, who entered the road, had been normally straighted from the road as a result of the suit, and the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s unilateral negligence, and therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the total amount equivalent to the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff as the amount of indemnity.

In this regard, the defendant, as a driver of a vehicle driving at an intersection, bears the duty of care to temporarily stop before entering the intersection and pass the intersection at a rapid speed, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle has contacted the defendant vehicle that attempted to turn to the left at the rapid speed without temporarily suspending the vehicle. Since the accident in this case conflicts between the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, the defendant asserts that there was no obligation to pay indemnity exceeding the rate of negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.

Judgment

.all vehicles;