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 entered into a comprehensive insurance contract for automobiles for business use with AB Co., Ltd. with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”).

B. On April 23, 2015, at around 15:49, the Defendant driven a C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and shocked the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was directly left and left from the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, from the front part of the E-lane, at the front side of the E-lane to the entrance door from the front side of the E-lane to the left and left part, from the front part of the E-lane.

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

The Defendant suffered injury from the injury of the 2nd margin scams in the instant accident, and the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 3,064,100 to the Defendant’s medical expenses, etc. by July 16, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred from the total negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle running across the center line. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the insurance proceeds, such as medical expenses, etc. paid by the Plaintiff, and 3,300,000 won for engineering analysis of the instant accident.

B. (1) Comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned evidence, the part concerning the claim for medical expenses, etc., the driver’s negligence by the Defendant’s driver who left left the left beyond the median line appears to have the main cause of the instant accident, but considering the speed of the two-way vehicle between the Defendant at the time when the Defendant’s vehicle, which was recognized by the descriptions or images of the evidence No. 3, 6, 7, and No. 1, attempted to turn to the left, the vehicle’s location at the time of the collision and the collision, etc., it appears that the Plaintiff’s driver might have reduced the speed or avoided the collision if the Plaintiff’s driver had performed his duty to turn to the left, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s driver who failed to perform his duty to turn to the left.