1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant A’s driver of the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”) and the Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract regarding the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

B. At around 05:40 on April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle: (a) passed the intersection of the private distance in two cities in two cities in two cities; (b) the Defendant’s vehicle passing through the said intersection by using one lane among the two lanes in two lanes in two cities in two cities in two cities in two cities in two cities in two cities in two cities in two cities in two cities in two cities in two roads in two roads in two roads in two roads in two roads in the direction of the Plaintiff’s driving. On the left side of the vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the Defendant’s vehicle passing through the said intersection by using one lane among the one way

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

By December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,167,840 in total in the name of medical expenses to the passenger of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the above facts of recognition, the accident of this case is deemed to have been caused by the principal negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle which was trying to enter the said intersection at a rapid speed without yielding the course to the Defendant’s vehicle, even though the Defendant’s vehicle had already entered the intersection where traffic control is not performed and went through almost all the intersections.

On the other hand, the defendant's vehicle has been negligent in passing through the intersection at a rapid speed, even though it was possible to easily ascertain the movement of the plaintiff vehicle in advance because there is no element to obstruct the view of the vehicle at that time, which also contributed to the occurrence of the above accident and the expansion of damage.

In light of the above circumstances, the negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle shall be 80%, and the negligence of the Defendant vehicle shall be 20%.

Therefore, the defendant paid to the plaintiff with the amount of indemnity 30.