1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

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

B. On August 5, 2015, around 16:55, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving a three-lane road adjacent to the intersection in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, an accident occurred that conflicts between the left side of the Defendant’s back part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the right side part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was seeking to move the two-lanes from the exit area of the Mapo-gu, to the three-lane road.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). At the time, the instant accident occurred in the course of repeating the stopping and departure of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and Defendant’s vehicle due to the delay of the vehicle.

C. On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 215,400 (the amount excluding KRW 200,000) as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the error of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who neglected to perform the duty of care to prevent the occurrence of accidents, such as neglecting the duty to safely enter the road so that the Defendant vehicle seeking to enter the road with a refined road does not interfere with the traffic of the vehicle driving the said road, leading the Defendant vehicle to enter the road unreasonably, waiting the Defendant vehicle to leave the road, and clearly expressing that the vehicle will pass first, was waiting until the Defendant vehicle will leave the road completely.

I would like to say.

In light of the background of the instant accident, the damage level and degree of the damage of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle, etc., it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle as 5:5

However, the plaintiff is the insurer of the insurance contract for the defendant vehicle, and the defendant is equivalent to the share of the driver of the defendant vehicle among the plaintiff's insurance proceeds.