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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff vehicle") shall be the insured vehicle.

Defendant’s insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”).

CD Temporary February 6, 2018. 19:28 at the port of port in the north-gu E apartment at the port of port, as set forth in the summary map at the scene of the accident at the scene of the collision.

The amount of insurance proceeds paid shall be KRW 9,00,00,00 in total, KRW 5,616,700 on February 12, 2018 and KRW 9,00,00,00 on February 14, 2018; KRW 3,383,300 on the basis of recognition; KRW 9,00,00 on the basis of recognition [applicable]; evidence Nos. 1 through 5; Category B-1, 2-2-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence before the fault ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle, the accident in this case occurred by neglecting the duty to turn to the left safely so as not to obstruct the flow of traffic of the opposite vehicle on the opposite vehicle, but making a left turn unreasonably. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.

However, according to Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 2-2, the defendant vehicle did not take measures such as speed reduction for other vehicles which had been driven by the defendant vehicle immediately before the non-protection unit meeting was conducted by the non-protection unit in this case. The defendant vehicle did not take measures such as speed reduction for other vehicles, but the plaintiff vehicle did not take measures such as speed reduction for other vehicles to turn to the left, but it can be recognized that the whole part of the plaintiff vehicle and the front right part of the defendant vehicle did sufficient to the right part of the vehicle with speed reduction immediately before the shock. If the accident is different, the accident of this case was negligent in neglecting the duty of care before the non-protection unit and by neglecting the duty of safe driving for the defendant vehicle.