1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part pertaining to the participation in the appeal is the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract in accordance with the BA car volume (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract regarding the CA car volume (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 28, 2015, around 14:10, where the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Housing does not have a signal signal, the road intersection is the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that entered the said intersection and the road is narrow compared to the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that entered the said intersection and the traffic accident that conflicts with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the said intersection (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On July 21, 2016, in relation to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000 insurance money to the insured of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Liability and scope of damages;

A. In light of the factual relations and the purport of the entire arguments on the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant’s driver, who had been proceeding on a road where the width is narrow compared to the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, should yield the course to the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving on a road with a wider width than the Defendant’s vehicle, was temporarily or temporarily stopped prior to the said intersection, or obstructed the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s entry into the said intersection, while taking account of the movement of another vehicle in the said direction. However, the Plaintiff’s driver, prior to the said intersection, was at the same time or temporarily stopped, or was erroneous for the Plaintiff’s driver to enter the said intersection without sufficiently examining the situation of other direction-setting roads and the movement of the vehicle installed in the said intersection.

The Plaintiff’s vehicle as seen earlier.