1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles.

On September 8, 2018, around 17:28, at the entrance road of F company E in Silung-si, there was an accident of shocking the plaintiff's vehicle, which was going on a four-lane to the intersection, while the defendant vehicle was making a sudden right-hand at the intersection, and was going on a five-lane.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 3,130,000 to the Plaintiff’s total damage insurance money, and filed a petition for dispute deliberation with the Defendant at the Dispute Resolution Committee. The negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle was determined at 10:90, and the Plaintiff returned KRW 2,817,000 from the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, the whole documentary evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the instant evidence, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s vehicle as 10:90.

The defendant vehicle was driving ahead of that of the plaintiff vehicle, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle seems to have been able to recognize that the defendant vehicle was trying to change the lane while the defendant vehicle was working rapidly.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff's vehicle is proceeding without being bound and it conflicts with the defendant's vehicle.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed for lack of reasonable grounds.

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.