Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D Two-wheeled Motor Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the Plaintiff’s salary class C and one ton of the Plaintiff’s salary class C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

B. On July 4, 2019, around 14:20 around the three-lane road in Ulsan-gu E-do, Ulsan-gu, U.S., where a collision occurred between the Plaintiff’s vehicle in U.S. and the Defendant’s vehicle in U.S. located in U.S. (hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On August 1, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 396,600 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (200,000 for self-paid charges) as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle was running in the U.S.-only internship area. However, the Defendant’s vehicle was faced with the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving an overspeed or scopic vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle is liable at least 40% for the instant accident.

Therefore, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff for the repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle KRW 158,640 equivalent to 40% of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff for the repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the delayed damages therefrom.

(b) Determination 1) Article 18(1) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “If the driver of a vehicle is likely to obstruct the normal flow of traffic of pedestrians or other horses, the driver of the vehicle shall not cross the road, make a U-turn or moving backward the vehicle by driving the vehicle.

"........"

In addition, according to the above evidence, it is recognized that there was a green signal sign at the driving direction of the defendant vehicle at the time of the accident in this case, and there was no factor that could interfere with the front view of the plaintiff vehicle.

The plaintiff's vehicle that intends to live in a scam or U.S. shall stop on the scamet and stop on the scamet and then shall not obstruct the passage of other vehicles after the passage of all the vehicles driving on the scam on the scamet.