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.

Facts of recognition

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the A New Zealand car (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B cargo vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 11:55 on November 15, 2014, at the intersection without signal lights from the front line of the D cafeteria in the city of Jinjin-si, the part of the driver’s seat of the Defendant vehicle, which was passing the instant intersection to the left from the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front line, was shocked with the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front line.

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

The Plaintiff’s driver E suffered injury due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff paid total of KRW 280,070 to his medical expenses until April 7, 2015.

However, 263,620 won out of the above money was first paid by the Defendant to the pertinent hospital in accordance with the payment guarantee of the hospital care costs, and then demanded the return of the money to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff remitted the money to the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, the statements or images of Gap evidence 1 through 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings [the degree of the accident of this case] The distance from the front stop line or virtual stop line to the point of accident of this case, the vehicle of this case is 4-5 meters for the plaintiff's vehicle, and 1-2 meters for the defendant vehicle, so the vehicle of this case shall be considered to have entered the intersection of this case.

As such, although the Plaintiff’s vehicle was entitled to preferential traffic by entering the instant intersection, the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle going through the intersection while passing the intersection without properly examining the movement of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle is at least 65%.

Therefore, the defendant.