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

B. On November 25, 2018, around 10:48, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the intersection without signal apparatus at the 38-11 side-dong, Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant intersection”) to the south along the south. The Plaintiff’s right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was driven on the ground of bankruptcy as the instant intersection, was shocked into the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On December 27, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,632,00,00 as insurance money after deducting KRW 500,000 of the self-paid cost for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant’s vehicle did not enter first than the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the instant intersection, and the Defendant’s vehicle was obligated to yield the course to the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was going on the right side. Therefore, in the instant accident, the Defendant’s fault ratio constitutes 70% and the Defendant is obligated to pay the indemnity amount of KRW 1,842,40,00 (=2,632,000 x 00 x 0.7) of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff.

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire argument as seen earlier, namely, ① there is no evidence to determine whether the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle were temporarily temporarily suspending and speeded at the time of the instant accident; ② the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle appear to have entered the instant intersection at the same time, but there is room to regard the Defendant’s vehicle as somewhat entered first, when considering the shock level of the two vehicles.