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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On August 8, 2018, at around 20:00, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the instant intersection and almost passed the instant intersection in accordance with the straight line from the intersection near the E apartment complex (hereinafter “instant intersection”). However, the Defendant’s vehicle entered the instant intersection before the right direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, leading the Defendant’s vehicle to the right direction of the vehicle, and led the Defendant’s vehicle to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s right direction.

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

The FSC deliberated on the instant accident on March 25, 2019 upon the Plaintiff’s request, and decided the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver: 10%. D.

On October 16, 2018, the Plaintiff paid 818,400 won, excluding 204,600 won to the repair business entity of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Defendant’s vehicle driven by the Defendant’s vehicle tried to make a right-hand route due to the stop line prior to the passage of the intersection, it should have checked whether the vehicle was in progress after the temporary stop and checked the right-hand route, the Defendant’s driver shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was driven normally in accordance with the straight line by disregarding the method of passage through the intersection under Article 25(5) of the Road Traffic Act by neglecting the method of passage through the intersection.

Plaintiff

As a driver of a vehicle, this case did not have any means to avoid an accident or avoid an accident by predicting that the defendant's vehicle conflicts between the plaintiff's vehicle on the right side after the view is cut off.