1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter "Plaintiff vehicle"). The defendant is not a dispute between the parties, who has entered into a mutual aid contract with E Co., Ltd. with which the defendant would compensate for the damage incurred due to the legal liability for the operation of the above company's bus with E Co., Ltd.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The place where the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant’s vehicle conflict (hereinafter “instant accident”) occurred is a shooting distance on both sides of the driving direction of the original Defendant’s vehicle, where a yellow flashing signal, etc. is installed. In front of the running direction of the Defendant’s vehicle, the instant accident is installed for temporary suspension prior to the crosswalk.

Therefore, the instant accident, as a vehicle passing through the intersection, is caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, which neglected the duty of mutual care to prevent the accident in preparation for the vehicle running from the other direction, and thus, falls under 20% of the fault ratio of the Defendant vehicle. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the insurance proceeds of KRW 8,685,950, which is equivalent to the fault ratio of the Defendant vehicle, out of the total insurance proceeds of KRW 8,685,950, which was paid to the Defendant’s passenger at the time of the instant accident to F, G, and H, and H as medical expenses and agreed fees, etc.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred by shocking the Defendant’s vehicle that the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the road by right-passing from the side road to the road. As such, the Plaintiff’s demand for reimbursement cannot be complied with on the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was by total negligence.

3. On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the first line of way by moving back the house located in the Yari-ero, Sori-riri-gu, Pari-si on December 18:30, 2015 to the backway.