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

B. On April 29, 2018, around 08:30 on April 29, 2018, there was an accident that is shocked with the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeding along the opposite direction while the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding in one-lane between the two-lanes in the direction of the original efficacy and the original efficacy four-lanes in the direction of the original efficacy. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On June 8, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 222,850,00 as the instant accident insurance proceeds, in total, KRW 121,960, and KRW 100,890,00,00,000,000,000,000 for the medical expenses of Defendant Vehicle E’s driver

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 9 through 12, Gap evidence 13-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence revealed prior to the determination of the percentage of negligence, the Defendant’s vehicle, even though the Plaintiff’s vehicle was straighted on the opposite lane, was in motion, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in motion without speed despite the temporary stop line and crosswalk on the front lane of the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately preceding the accident place, and thereby, can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s seat side and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle were shocked.

In light of all the circumstances, such as the background of the instant accident, the place of the accident, and shock level, etc., the instant accident is deemed to have occurred by the negligence of the driver of the Plaintiff, who was directly engaged in without closely examining the traffic situation in the frontline, and without complying with the main negligence of the driver of the Defendant, who was the driver of the Plaintiff and the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle. It is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio of the driver of the Plaintiff and the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is 10

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 22,850 as the insurance proceeds of the instant accident on June 8, 2018.