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 organization that is obligated to compensate for damage caused by a car accident in cases where a member suffers damage similar to a non-life insurance business or a mutual aid business in accordance with the terms and conditions of the first aid agreement within the partnership, etc., and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor is a “Plaintiff’s vehicle below D private taxi vehicle.”

As the owner of the vehicle, the plaintiff is the member of the company, and the defendant is the "Defendant vehicle" below E vehicle.

It is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract.

B. On August 4, 2018, at the additional 16:50 on the digital page of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on August 4, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven along the two-lane straight lines from the wall surface of the distance of the additional digital three complex to the light view, and the Defendant’s vehicle that was bypassing from the right side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the right side of the right side of the direction of the vehicle is “the instant accident” refers to the accident in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocks the Plaintiff vehicle.

(c) On September 6, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,200,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the compensation for the instant accident. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 6, 9, and 12 (if there is a serial number, each entry or video, including each number, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence revealed prior to the determination of the percentage of negligence, the Defendant vehicle naturally enters the three-lanes that appear after the access road if a right-hand is made by a light-deline, depending on the lane marked on the access road. However, the Defendant vehicle is sufficient to show that at the time of the right-handing on the access road, the Plaintiff vehicle, which was driven directly on the two-lanes without entering the three-lanes depending on the lane, is shocked, and that the Plaintiff vehicle was driven directly on the two-lanes. The instant accident was caused by the principal negligence of the Defendant vehicle driver who driven dangerously at the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle.

However, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor is also an intervenor.