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

나. 원고 차량과 피고 차량은 2016. 4. 18. 16:15경 서울 서초구 C 소재 D백화점 앞 편도 2차선 도로(이하 ‘이 사건 도로’라 한다)를 진행하여 그 부근 “ㅜ” 자 형태의 삼거리 교차로(이하 ‘이 사건 교차로’라 한다)에서 우회전하던 중, 원고 차량의 우측 앞 휀다 부분과 피고 차량의 좌측 앞 휀다 부분이 충돌하는 교통사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)가 발생하였다.

C. On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle, paid KRW 144,000 insurance money to E, the insured of the Plaintiff vehicle, as the vehicle repair cost.

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

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted prior to the occurrence of the liability for damages, the following facts are: (a) the two-lanes of the instant road at the time of the instant accident; (b) the two-lanes of the instant road at the time of the instant accident, the traffic facilities installed in the shape of the road at regular intervals in order to prohibit vehicles from parking at the vicinity of the instant crosswalks; and (c) the vehicles could not drive along the two-lanes; and (d) at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle that was bypassing the direction of the instant road at the point near the instant intersection at the time of the instant accident.

In light of the degree of the conflict between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle and the degree of the damage, the plaintiff's vehicle is different.