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

Plaintiff

On June 4, 2017, at around 10:17, the vehicle was in progress one-lane between the four-lanes in the direction of the Guri City in the direction of the Guri City from the Jindong-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul. The defendant vehicle entered the upper two-lane from the front side of the distribution intersection to the right side North Korean, and the part of the defendant vehicle's front side of the right side of the vehicle was shocked by the front side of the right side of the vehicle.

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

On June 22, 2017, the Plaintiff paid 3,030,000 won for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (2,00,000 won for self-payment) as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Gap evidence 4, 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s driver who violated the method of career change and neglected his duty of safe driving.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred between the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver and the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and the negligence ratio is 40:60.

C. We examine the following circumstances: (a) the point where the instant accident occurred, namely, the point where the Defendant’s side is combined with the Plaintiff’s side; and (b) when she intends to enter the roads from the roads to the main roads, she should enter the roads after carefully examining whether there are other vehicles running on the roads to temporarily stop or reduce the speed. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s driver was at fault without considering the situation.