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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the driver of the two-wheeled vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 24, 2017, at around 20:52, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in the vicinity of the school Dongdong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and was trying to move bypassing the four-lanes of the four-lanes from the boundary of the school Dong-dong, Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Seoul. The lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was driving directly the said four-lanes on the left side of the Plaintiff’s left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked toward the right side of the lower part.

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

On May 19, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,292,00 as insurance money for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5 each entry, Gap evidence 3, and 6-1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred between the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s negligence, and the negligence ratio is 50:50.

B. Since the Plaintiff’s driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle partially manipulates the Plaintiff’s damage unrelated to the instant accident to incur excessive repair costs, the Defendant is not liable for the amount equivalent to the repair cost not incurred due to the instant accident.

C. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the above recognition facts and the purport of the entire arguments to the aforementioned evidence, namely, the Plaintiff’s driver appears to have attempted to make a right-hand, without sufficient distance, even though the vehicle in direct operation following the vehicle is required to make a right-hand, taking into account the speed, etc. of the vehicle in direct operation. The Defendant may sufficiently anticipate that the vehicle can have a vehicle attempting to make a right-hand, going on the right-hand side of the road. Thus, the Defendant is able to do so.