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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A forbenz vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid association which entered into a mutual aid agreement with C Bus (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On April 20, 2017, at around 19:21, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered a straight line after making a left-hand turn to the left-hand turn at a place connected to the unification of the area near the Han River of Yongsan-gu, Seoul, the Han River of 405, and the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding on the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but there was an accident that shocks on the front and rear part of the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. By June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,145,000 insurance money to A as repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The accident of this case was normally proceeded along the two lanes of the plaintiff's vehicle, but the defendant's vehicle, which was proceeding at the three-lanes of the same direction, has reached the right side of the plaintiff's vehicle while changing its course to the two-lanes. Thus, the defendant's vehicle, a large bus, caused the accident of this case in violation of the Road Traffic Act while changing its course. Thus, the negligence of the defendant's vehicle should be deemed to be 90%. Accordingly, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff who exempted the defendant from liability in accordance with the insurer's subrogation doctrine (= KRW 6,430,500 x 7,145,000 x 90% x 90%) and damages for delay. 2) The defendant's accident of this case, while the plaintiff's vehicle, which was proceeding at the one-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of course without any signal, such as the Gap's own direction.