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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

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

B. On July 26, 2019, around 09:10 on July 26, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle passed the straight-distance intersection along the three-lane two lanes of the front side of the front side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but there was an accident that conflicts between the front part of the Defendant’s driver’s seat and the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s right side (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On August 21, 2019, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle, paid KRW 532,580 (a separate charge of KRW 200,000) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. While the Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle was passing through a private-distance intersection according to the straight-distance signal, the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s driver who made a right-hand bypass without yielding the course to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle was making a bypassing the Defendant’s vehicle at the instant long-distance intersection. The Plaintiff’s driver was negligent in driving the Defendant’s vehicle, even though it was possible to verify such Defendant’s vehicle, and running the Plaintiff’s vehicle without driving or speeding it.

3. Determination

A. According to the above basic facts and the aforementioned macroscopic evidence, the accident of this case is deemed to have been caused by the principal negligence of the Defendant vehicle driver who shocked the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle while making a right-hand bypass without yielding the course to the Plaintiff vehicle passing through the private-distance intersection in accordance with the straight line.

However, the whole of the arguments presented above.