1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The Intervenor joining the Defendant shall bear the costs of the intervention in the appeal.

1. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

The Intervenor joining the Defendant is the driver of the Defendant vehicle.

On September 2, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle was located in the mountain college located in the front of the 218 industrial technology complex at the intersection of the 218 industrial technology complex at Silung-si on September 2, 2016, and the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was left left to the right right right right right of the running direction of the Defendant vehicle, was shocked by the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). On September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,419,900 insurance money to the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost, etc. due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including branch numbers for those with a branch number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of both claims;

A. The Plaintiff: The instant accident occurred at the wind where the Defendant’s vehicle did not stop at the intersection in contravention of the signal and is straighten as it is.

A reasonable amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff as the claim for reimbursement shall be claimed to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was also at fault in violation of the yellow signal, and neglected the duty of left and right-hand on the left; and (b) the vehicle straight down at the intersection takes precedence over the left-hand vehicle; (c) so the Plaintiff’s fault ratio on the side is higher than the Defendant’s fault ratio.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops in excess of the stop line and starts to turn to the left after starting a yellow signal before changing it to the left turn signal from the straight line, and immediately thereafter, the yellow signal changed to the left turn signal, and (ii) the Defendant’s vehicle at the time.