1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A, at the time of the insured vehicle A, at the location of 18:40 on December 22, 2016 at the time of the accident, and the insured vehicle and the insured vehicle of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant vehicle") in front of the D Child Care Center D at Ison-si, Leecheon-si (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff vehicle") enter the left-hand turn signal at the same time and enter the left-hand turn at the left-hand turn, the part front of the plaintiff vehicle and the left-hand side of the defendant vehicle are shock (the specific collision situation is as shown in the attached Form No. 1,524,450 on the face of the accident site), and 304,00 (the ground for recognition) of the self-paid vehicle and the insured vehicle of the self-paid vehicle in front of the defendant vehicle in question at the time of the accident. The purport of the entire pleadings and arguments is as follows: A. 1,2,4,5,6,9, and No. 11-1, 2, and 3

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident solely occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and that the Plaintiff subrogated the Plaintiff’s claim for damages by subrogation against the insurer regarding the part of the damages incurred by the Plaintiff’s insured from the damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident overlaps with the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s driver’s negligence.

The circumstances revealed in the above facts, such as the background of the accident, the degree of conflict and shock, in particular, the location of the Plaintiff and the Defendant vehicle indicated in the evidence No. 4 (if the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at a very shorter distance than that of the left-hand turn and at the same speed, the Plaintiff’s vehicle would have to enter first the vehicle. However, if the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle, it is no longer deemed that the Defendant vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle at a longer speed than that of the left-hand turn, the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s video content in the evidence No. 5 came first to the left-hand turn, and the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding at a speed higher than that of the latter.