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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with Cenz vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with Denz cruise vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On July 31, 2017, around 11:27 minutes, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered three-lanes between the four-lanes in the direction of the G department store by making a right-hand turn to the direction of the G department store in the direction of the G department store. According to the left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-on, the Defendant’s vehicle operating a right-handton in the direction of the G department store in the direction of the G department store in the direction of the left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-on, caused an accident attributable to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the rear part of the left-hand part of the Plaintiff vehicle.

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

On September 13, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,425,00,00, after deducting KRW 500,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (including branch numbers), video, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the former negligence of the Defendant’s driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, who was an early internship by failing to discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle located at the intersection after completion of the right ofpass and violating the duty of safety and safety. Therefore, pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the Defendant, as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 9,425,00, which the Plaintiff paid at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and

B. The Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant’s vehicle was a normal internship, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle was negligent in evading the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to the right to