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. The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings on each entry and image of Gap evidence 1 to 5.

With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 17, 2016, around 11:45, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded with the main points of the deaf-road that is not a vehicle in the C at a macro-city, and it was impossible to avoid the Defendant’s vehicle going to the central part of the deaf-road, which led to a conflict between the front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat and the front part of the Defendant’s seat (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

C. With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 200,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and paid KRW 483,690,00, a sum of KRW 77,290 on January 28, 2016, and KRW 406,400 on May 3, 2016, and paid KRW 207,410 on January 25, 2016 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle.

2. The judgment of the court on the previous defense on the merits is that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to treat the damage caused by the traffic accident in this case as the fault ratio of the plaintiff 40% and the defendant 60%, which constitutes an agreement on the second lawsuit. The amount to be borne by the defendant on the damage caused by the traffic accident in this case according to the above agreement is 290,214 won (=483,690 x 0.6) equivalent to 60% of the fault ratio of the defendant 290,214, among the lawsuits in this case, the claim on the part exceeding 290,214 won is unlawful against the agreement on the second lawsuit.

As seen earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 207,410 equivalent to 40% of the total repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle as the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, but it is difficult to deem that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to bring an action solely on such circumstance.