1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 24, 2017, around 08:25, the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly engaged in under the straight line of the said intersection, while attempting to make a right-hand at the front T-type intersection of the apartment in front of the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

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

On May 16, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,987,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that at the time of the accident in this case, the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle since the defendant's vehicle stopped without yield to the plaintiff's vehicle, and the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle. On the other hand, the defendant's vehicle, which was proceeding in accordance with the normal signal, could not expect that the plaintiff's vehicle would be bypass in violation of the signal, and the defendant's vehicle, which is a large cargo vehicle, should be exempted because it constitutes force majeure because it is not possible to recognize or avoid the plaintiff's vehicle.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the arguments, namely, ① in a case where the Plaintiff seeks to make a right-hand turn to the intersection, should proceed to the right-hand side of the road in advance (Article 25(1) of the Road Traffic Act), and the Plaintiff’s driver attempted to make a right-hand turn to the Defendant’s vehicle, even though the Plaintiff verified the Defendant’s vehicle that is directly going to the right-hand side