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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 26, 2015, around 12:40, the Plaintiff’s vehicle came to the access road to the second underground floor from the third underground level of the building in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul to the second underground floor. From the second underground level to the third underground floor, the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s front part of the front part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle, which affected the said access road, was shocked by the front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.

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

On October 28, 2015, with respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 411,310 as insurance money under the name of the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. A summary of the party's assertion 1) The plaintiff asserts that at the time, the accident of this case occurred because the plaintiff had an excessive right of way during the process of entering the passage connecting the defendant vehicle with the second floor above the second floor to the third floor above the underground, and it was impossible for the plaintiff vehicle, who had been going on the third floor above the underground and entered the second floor above the ground, to avoid the defendant vehicle. The plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle's negligence related to the occurrence of accident are 30:70,00,000 won for indemnity corresponding to the ratio of responsibility (41,310 won x 30%) and damages for delay. 2) The defendant claimed that the accident of this case should pay to the plaintiff the plaintiff a right of way corresponding to the ratio of responsibility (41,310 won x 30%) as a result, while neglecting the plaintiff vehicle's duty of front-time and safe driving, and maintaining the speed of the defendant vehicle at the speed of the second to the second floor above the underground.