1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On March 7, 2017, around 08:22, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding one-lane of the three-lanes of the two-lanes in the direction of the above road in the vicinity of the U.S. In order for the Defendant’s vehicle driving over the median line to drive over the median line, the Defendant’s vehicle driving over the two-lanes of the above road in the same direction conflict with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s front part on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On September 29, 2017 and October 26, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 18,684,000 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The following circumstances are revealed in light of the facts acknowledged as above and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the road in which the instant accident occurred is not the 6nd line set up along the median line with the yellow solid lines, but the Defendant’s driver, while proceeding two lanes from the 3rd line, obstructed the course of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by attempting the Plaintiff’s own illegal internship immediately in the future in the situation where the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding on the 1st lane, which is the next side of the 3rd line. ② there is no material to deem that the Plaintiff’s driver knew or could have known the Defendant’s above illegal internship attempt before the instant accident. ③ In light of the distance and road situation with the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time when the Defendant’s vehicle attempted an illegal internship, there is no material to deem that the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver knew or could have known the Defendant’s aforementioned illegal internship attempt.