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. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 17, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 19:00, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle before the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Hospital (hereinafter “instant road”).

At the time, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle passed through the safety zone as indicated below in order to go to the front side of the instant road (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”), and then entered the right side of the instant vehicle (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”). However, there was a traffic accident in which the Defendant’s vehicle, who attempted to go to the instant vehicle from the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the road, shocked the back side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the front side of the left side.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). At the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, the location of the original and Defendant vehicle shall be as follows:

C. At the time of the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, vehicles passing through the safety zone due to traffic congestion and vehicles attempting to combine with the instant road from the right side of the safety zone to the instant road were repeated, and entered the instant lane.

On December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 2,085,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged as well as the aforementioned detailed evidence, the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in relation to the instant traffic accident caused by competition between the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s driver’s negligence is 20%, and the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle is 80%.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.