The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the Plaintiff’s C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”), respectively.

B. On January 29, 2019, around 15:20 on January 29, 2019, the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was proceeding in accordance with the vehicle moving signal from the lower left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, operating the direction direction, etc. while driving in four lanes near the crosswalks of the five-lane road located in the front city of the front city, the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was proceeding in accordance with the vehicle moving signal, was in conflict.

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

On February 22, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,443,00 (the amount obtained by deducting KRW 200,000 from its own shares) as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the foregoing accident.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers) and the purpose of the entire pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the aforementioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which failed to perform the instant accident, even though it was possible to avoid the instant accident, in spite of the fact that the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the safety driving duty could have sufficiently discovered the Defendant’s vehicle’s operation of the direction-setting, etc. on the left-hand side, and that the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the safety driving duty was concurrent, when the instant accident proceeded into a four-lane road near the crosswalk of the five-lane road, and changing its course to the left-hand side.

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of the place of the accident in this case and the background of the accident, the damaged parts of the original Defendant vehicle, and the degree of violation of the duty of care of the original Defendant vehicle, etc., it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio as 10% of the Plaintiff vehicle and 90%

B. Therefore, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff with the indemnity amount of KRW 4,878,70, which corresponds to the percentage of fault of the Defendant’s vehicle (i.e., the Defendant paid).