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 has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to Crocketing vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to DPoste vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 23, 2017, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle is driving along a road near F in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si at the intersection where no signal apparatus was available, the Plaintiff’s accident was caused by failing to discover the Defendant’s vehicle running directly from the right side of the mast Plaintiff’s vehicle along a one-lane road, and failing to discover the Defendant’s vehicle passing the said intersection, and shocking with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front part of the vehicle.

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

On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,620,760, excluding KRW 405,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the previous negligence of the Defendant’s driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, who had been making a continuous stop without yielding the course to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which clearly entered the intersection where traffic is not controlled, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle with the amount of indemnity under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, and the delay damages therefrom.

B. The Defendant’s assertion not only did the instant accident temporarily stop at the intersection without traffic control, but also occurred due to the Plaintiff’s total negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver who driven the Defendant’s vehicle driving on the road with a wider width on the right side of the Plaintiff’s driving direction without discovering the vehicle. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement cannot be accepted.

3. Determination A.