1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicles”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicles”).

B. On January 10, 2015, where traffic control is not performed on or around 08:50, the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately proceeds from the intersection near the main apartment zone in the Gyeongdong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant intersection”) and the Defendant’s vehicle proceeds to the left-hand turn to the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and there was an accident that conflicts between the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s right side (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. By February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,763,300,000 for the total repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle destroyed by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, Gap evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In addition to the overall purport of images and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 in the above basic facts, the crosssection of this case was a place where traffic control was not performed, and since the width of the road on which the plaintiff's vehicle passed is wider than that of the road on which the defendant's vehicle passed, the defendant's vehicle, first of all, has a duty of care to give way to the vehicle if there is such a vehicle, even though it is obliged to give way to the vehicle [it is possible to enter the intersection first after arrival at the intersection first, if it is possible to enter the intersection first), shall not pass ahead of the vehicle which intends to enter the intersection with a wide range of width (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da21264, Aug. 24, 199). Thus, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence going through without neglecting this.