1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in each entry or image of Gap evidence 1 to 6, with a comprehensive view to the whole purport of the pleadings:

The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). Defendant Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 18:29 on May 4, 2015, D driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, leading the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the direction of the Defendant’s right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, leading the vehicle to the direction of the three-lane in the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the vehicle, moving from the direction of the direction of the direction of the vehicle to the direction of the three-lane. On the other hand, D changed the two-lane to the one-lane, and the one-lane of the direction of the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle to the direction of the direction of the Plaintiff’s right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On May 8, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,000,000 to E, who was on board the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, as the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the accident in this case occurred by the negligence that D did not fulfill its duty of care to verify whether or not the vehicle is traveling along the access lane when driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the negligence that Defendant A did not perform its duty of care to display the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s movement in the front direction while driving the Defendant vehicle. In light of the content and degree of each negligence as above, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A’s liability ratio for damages caused by the accident in this case exceeds 30%, and the Plaintiff is the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff suffered damages due to the accident in this case.