1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with B (hereinafter “Defendant”) on the vehicle B.

B. On June 14, 2014, around 15:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding one lane in front of the Cheongcheon-dong Cheongcheon-gu Incheon Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon, Seocheon-gu, Cheongcheon-do, and Cheongcheon-do, and the direction of the vehicle was transferred to the right to the right to the right to the right to the left, and the vehicle was placed on the right side of the first lane by converting the vehicle immediately into the left side. The Defendant’s vehicle followed the vehicle following the Defendant’s vehicle, without avoiding the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked by the front back door and back part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

By August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,358,150 to C who was a passenger of the Defendant vehicle in relation to the instant accident, under the name of medical expenses, amount agreed, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the location of the instant accident is one-lane road, and the Plaintiff’s driver reduced the speed to secure the internship space, and took several hand on the right side. Rather, the Defendant’s vehicle was driving without maintaining the safety distance, and the instant accident occurred while driving the Defendant’s vehicle over the center line without reducing the speed to overtake the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As such, the Defendant determined the fault of the Defendant’s vehicle related to the accident as 70% and paid the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 950,700 (i.e., KRW 1,358,150 x 70% of the Defendant’s fault ratio) as compensation.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the above basic facts and the above evidence, are that U.S.A. is not allowed to cross-sections in which the instant accident occurred.