1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around September 15:15, 2019, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the road in front of the building E, at Hanam-si. However, despite the discovery of the Plaintiff’s vehicle bypassing from the distance near a three-lane where the signal apparatus of the first-lane road was not installed, the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to overtake the Plaintiff’s vehicle by passing the center line to overtake the vehicle without stopping or driving at the front stop line, and there was an accident where the part on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. As a result of the instant accident, I suffered each injury by the passengers of F, G, H, and Defendant vehicle who are passengers of the Plaintiff vehicle.

Plaintiff

Until November 22, 2019, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the vehicle, paid 1,56,80 won to F, 1,145,950 won to G, 1,143,990 won to H, and 1,08,750 won to I, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle moved to a small road and entered the road completely above, and the defendant's vehicle driving behind the vehicle trying to overtake the plaintiff's vehicle in an unreasonable central line, and the accident of this case occurred by shocking the plaintiff's vehicle, and the negligence of the defendant's vehicle covers at least 80%.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's vehicle was moving ahead of a three-distance intersection where signal lights are not installed, and the plaintiff's vehicle was moving to the one-lane road bypassing from the small road. The defendant's fault of the plaintiff's vehicle that entered the small road than the negligence of the defendant's vehicle with the right of priority of passage should be higher than that of the defendant's vehicle.