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 an automobile insurance contract with the plaintiff A (hereinafter the plaintiff's vehicle) for the two-wheeled vehicle (hereinafter the defendant's two-wheeled vehicle).

B. On September 20, 2014, around 13:00, there was an accident in which the Defendant-wheeled Vehicle had contacted the Plaintiff’s vehicle located in the apartment complex located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu and the opposite direction, who was going to move to the Madern Vehicle.

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

On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 996,420 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties, since the defendant Lee-wheeled Vehicle was an accident that caused the plaintiff's vehicle while driving in a normal direct manner beyond the central line, the accident of this case occurred by the driver of the defendant Lee-wheeled Vehicle's unilateral negligence, and therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the full amount equivalent to the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as the compensation amount.

The defendant, as a driver of a vehicle driving across the intersection, bears the duty of care of care to pass through the intersection after temporary suspension before entering the intersection. The driver of the plaintiff vehicle without temporary suspension passes through the intersection at a rapid speed, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle contacted with the defendant-wheeled vehicle who tried to turn to the right to the right to the right to the moving direction of the plaintiff vehicle in the direction of the traffic of the plaintiff. The accident of this case conflicts between the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the negligence of the driver of the defendant-wheeled vehicle, so the defendant did not have the duty of compensation prohibition exceeding the fault ratio of the driver of the defendant-wheeled vehicle.

3. The following circumstances, i.e., the instant accident acknowledged by adding the whole purport of pleadings to the descriptions or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3: