1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On May 3, 2018, around 10:55, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, who was straighted in the third lane of the opposite vehicle, while making a U.S. in the first lane among the three lanes near the F Bank in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the right side.

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

The Plaintiff filed a petition for deliberation on the instant accident, and the deliberation and resolution at the deliberation committee on the amount of the Plaintiff’s fault at 20%, and at the rate of the Defendant’s vehicle’s fault at 80% (hereinafter “instant decision”). D.

On May 10, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 485,100 as insurance money, such as repair cost, to the Plaintiff vehicle insured.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 11, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred by the total negligence of the defendant's vehicle, which violated and directly controlled red signal at the intersection, and that the defendant's fault ratio should be 100%, and that the defendant is obligated to pay the total amount of KRW 485,100 of the insurance money paid to the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle as the amount of indemnity.

B. However, according to the above facts and the evidence as seen earlier, the accident of this case enters the intersection of yellow on-and-off signal instead of red signal, and without due care in the presence of the obstacles, and changed to the left turn signal, as well as the negligence of the defendant's vehicle that continued straightly without due care in the view of the obstacles. However, although the accident of this case was changed to the left turn signal, it cannot be seen as an obstacle even if there was the defendant's vehicle which had already entered the intersection and proceeded to the opposite lane.