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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for business cars (from July 31, 2016 to July 24:00 to July 31, 2017) with respect to the C Special Emergency Medical Services Vehicles owned by the vice chief of the fire station (hereinafter “Plaintiff Emergency Medical Vehicles”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with D Co., Ltd. for Erenc Vehicles owned by D Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On July 11, 2017, around 16:50, the Plaintiff first-aid vehicle moved to G Hospital by a second-lane (except for a non-protective left-hand turn-hand road) road in the vicinity of the U.S., Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si (hereinafter “instant road”), from the middle-towing distance room, and changed the course to the right-hand left-hand turn-hand road in the safety zone and the H apartment entrance and exit area of the H apartment.

The Defendant’s vehicle driving along the instant road on the rear side of the Plaintiff’s ambulances, and entering the central line and the above safety zone to the instant scamet, and there was an accident involving the front wheels of the Plaintiff’s ambulances and the front wheels of the Defendant’s vehicle, which changed course, faced with the front wheels of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

Until December 7, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 3,139,200 (hereinafter “instant repair cost”) in total with the repair cost of Plaintiff first-aid vehicle related to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including branch numbers if they have serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred when the Defendant’s vehicle following the instant accident was pushed down with the central line and went into the safety place to enter the instant scamet, and the Plaintiff’s first-aid vehicle was deprived of the safety area. The Plaintiff’s first-aid vehicle partly invaded the safety area.