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. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On April 25, 2017, around 20:47, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped in order to make a right-hand side of the “D station” front of the “D station” in the Gu, Si, Si, Si, to a flow-on side, and resumed again, the part of the Defendant’s right-hand side side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was going through the said intersection from the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked into the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left-hand side.

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

On May 19, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 4,220,200 to the Plaintiff’s towing cost and repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

On November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for deliberation and resolution of the instant accident against the Defendant. On November 27, 2017, the Committee determined the error ratio of the instant accident to the Plaintiff’s vehicle 70% and the Defendant’s vehicle 30% on the grounds of deliberation and resolution as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped immediately before the collision and stopped due to the collision between the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was bypassing the intersection and entering the station outside the street station; (b) the accident occurred at the point where the Defendant’s vehicle passes through the intersection; and (c) the collision level.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that the accident of this case occurred as a whole by negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who was rapidly preferred to enter the oil station without using the direction direction, etc. immediately before the plaintiff's vehicle departing from the intersection, while the defendant asserts that the accident of this case was caused by the whole negligence of the driver of the vehicle that was rapidly preferred to enter the oil station.