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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On March 17, 2018, at around 10:10, the Defendant’s vehicle went along the two-lanes of the 1219-wing-do (hereinafter “instant road”) between the two-lanes in the direction of the race track and the two-lanes. In the process, the Plaintiff’s left-hand portion of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running along the three-lanes in front of the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle.

Plaintiff

The vehicle is in receipt of the central separation zone due to its shock and conflicts with E-vehicle driven in the opposite lane (hereinafter referred to as "victim vehicle") beyond the opposite lane.

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

The defendant paid 6,721,860 won to the driver of the damaged vehicle with the insurance money caused by the instant accident.

The Defendant filed an application with the FSC for adjustment of the claim for reimbursement of the instant accident with respect to the Plaintiff. On June 24, 2019, the FSC decided to pay the Plaintiff 672,186 won (i.e., the insurance money paid by the Defendant 6,721,860 x 10% of the negligence of the Plaintiff x 10% of the negligence on the part of the Plaintiff 10% on the part of the Defendant 90% on the part of the instant accident.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant deliberation and coordination decision”). (e)

On July 1, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 672,180 to the Defendant according to the instant decision of deliberation and coordination.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred is unreasonable without verifying the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the three-lanes of the instant road while the Defendant Company driven along the two-lanes of the instant road.