1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B buses (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On January 31, 2016, around 20:00, according to a stop signal such as signal on the third line road near the New Tri-park located in the Newdong, Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was placed on one lane in the two-lane, but the Defendant’s vehicle was placed in the two-lane. However, during the process of changing the signal, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was fast from the first lane to the second lane, resulting in an accident of collision on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the front side of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,158,600 as insurance money for the damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred concurrently with the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle that violated the duty of care to operate safely by taking into account the front section and the left section. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff 463,440 won (=1,58,600 won x 40%) equivalent to 40% of the negligence ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle out of the insurance proceeds 1,158,600 won paid by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.

B. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are stopping in the atmosphere of signal signal, immediately enter the vehicle from one to two lanes as soon as the Plaintiff’s vehicle starts, and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s left side was shocked. In light of the above circumstances of the accident, it was difficult to predict that the vehicle’s side, as the Plaintiff’s vehicle starts, entered the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle as the front part of the right side of the vehicle.