1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5.

The plaintiff is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with A with respect to the motor vehicles for B Potete, and the defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with C with respect to the motor vehicles for D bargaining.

B. On May 25, 2015, at around 11:15, A, driving a car for the above Pool and driving it on the road front of the F-Housing which became connected to it, and the left-hand turn from the alley of the F-Housing which was connected to it, to the left-hand turn, conflict with C Driving car, which was directly left-hand from the right-hand side of the said car, to the tripla-off plane of the C-driving car, from the right-hand side of the said car.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The road in the accident site of this case is a one-way road that is run by C as well as A, and the signal lights and reflectors are not installed at the place where C is running, and as C is proceeding, C is a one-way road that can proceed only from the scular road on the scular road, and the left-hand side of the road was a public parking zone. At the time of the accident, A left-hand turn to the left due to a vehicle parked directly adjacent to the above station, among the public parking zone as above, at the time of the accident, at the time of the accident, a vehicle parked directly adjacent to the above station, and C was also causing the accident while driving the road at the above accident site under the condition that there is an obstacle to the vehicle coming from the alley road.

Due to the above accident, the driver's seat and the left left-hand left-hand gate were damaged, and the car for the subject was damaged to the right-hand side of the front gate.

E. On July 20, 2015, the Plaintiff paid to A insurance money equivalent to KRW 195,900 for the repair cost of the said Mete car.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is the insurer of C, who is a tort under Article 750 of the Civil Act, and A due to the accident of this case pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act.