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 entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s B Uidi A4 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), with respect to C Driving D (Defendant’s vehicle).

B. On August 28, 2013, at around 20:47, E was driven by the Plaintiff’s vehicle and entered the intersection within the third underground parking lot in the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant intersection”). On the left side, E was shocked on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving it into the intersection at an unforeseen speed.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case")

On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff paid insurance money of KRW 22,490,000 to A with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On the other hand, the plaintiff's vehicle entered the intersection of this case by putting the plaintiff's vehicle under the duty of front and right and right and right and right and the defendant's vehicle continued to enter the intersection of this case, which led to the shock of the side of the plaintiff's vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff's negligence did not exist or even if the negligence is recognized, the negligence ratio is less than 10%.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle is less than 60% on the ground that, at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle seeking to make a right-hand turn to the intersection and the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly located on the left-hand side of the entrance direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, entered the intersection almost at the same time, and the Defendant’s vehicle was relatively higher than the Plaintiff’s vehicle and did not have a speed to violate the restricted speed. The instant location was an underground parking lot, and the vehicle that had already been parked on the right-hand side and the wall of the underground parking lot, etc. was not smooth to secure the right-hand and right-hand side.