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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. As to the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), the Defendant is the insurer who concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the primary lane (hereinafter “instant road”) in front of the entrance of the D cafeteria located in C at C at C on March 19:13, 2017. As the previous Defendant’s vehicle moved to the left-hand side to the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle, there was an accident where the Plaintiff’s vehicle is destroyed due to the collision between the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the driver’s seat on the right-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle while driving ahead of the instant road (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On July 14, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,055,600 (= KRW 31,300,000) in total as repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (= KRW 1,070,000).

On the other hand, the plaintiff applied for deliberation on the accident of this case to the committee for deliberation on automobile insurance disputes. The committee decided that the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle is 60% and the negligence of the defendant's vehicle is 40%.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s Defendant’s vehicle neglected the duty of care to take appropriate measures, such as emphasizing the movement of the surrounding vehicle and occupying direction direction, etc., and attempted to make a sudden and unreasonable round prior to the center line, and conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As such, the instant accident occurred due to the total fault of the Defendant’s vehicle, and accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the entire repair cost paid by the Plaintiff who acquired the right of compensation by subrogation by the insurer as the indemnity.

B. The Defendant’s vehicle ought to proceed with the front Defendant’s vehicle after completing the right of way, but is unreasonable to the right of way.