1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 31, 2013, at approximately 06:49, the Plaintiff’s vehicle passed the intersection of the nameline of the nameline in Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong along the two-lane two-lanes from the boundary of the direction to the boundary line. On the other hand, the Defendant’s vehicle, when the number off entered the intersection to the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was changed to the direction from the boundary of the southwest-gu market, and was in conflict with the other Defendant’s vehicle that passed at the first lane to avoid a collision with the said vehicle.

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

On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 727,230 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s negligence, which the Defendant’s driver neglected the duty of front-time care, led to the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff an indemnity amounting to KRW 472,700 equivalent to the percentage of the Defendant’s fault (65%) out of the above insurance proceeds, and its delay damages.

B. However, the following circumstances, which can be seen by the descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, i.e., the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle waiting for the signal in front of the above long-distance intersection, but they almost started at the same time. However, the plaintiff's vehicle is accelerated and the defendant's vehicle was rapidly stopped by changing the direction toward the first lane, the distance between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle immediately before rapid stop is close.