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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are both insurers engaged in non-life insurance business, such as the comprehensive automobile insurance business, and the Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with D (contractor and the insured) with respect to the automobile of C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with F (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

On October 26, 2019, around 18:10 on October 26, 2019, the defendant vehicle, who has left the right to the left at the time of green signal at the intersection with the signal apparatus at the situation of collision with the Jinjin-gu, Jinjin-gu, Jinjin-gu, e.g., 589 at the intersection with the above signal apparatus at the situation of collision, is a collision.

B. The details of the instant accident are as follows.

C. On November 26, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,140,00 to the Plaintiff’s insured worker D with the insurance proceeds from the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The key point of the party’s assertion is that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and the Defendant alleged to the effect that the error ratio of 20% (Plaintiff’s vehicle):80% (Defendant’s vehicle) is adequate.

B. According to the evidence mentioned above, as long as the left turn is made at the private distance intersection where the left turn is marked to the left, the defendant vehicle cannot be deemed to have violated the signal, but when the left turn is made, the left turn should be made safely so that the flow of the opposite vehicle does not interfere with the traffic flow of the vehicle. The driver of the defendant vehicle can sufficiently discover the plaintiff vehicle which was directly under the normal new code on the opposite side, but the driver of the vehicle without stopping the non-protective left turn without neglecting the duty of the front line, and caused the accident in this case.