1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 1, 2016, around 08:30, there was a traffic accident where the defendant vehicle proceeding three-lanes with the plaintiff vehicle who made a left turn at the front of the Dmapt located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, such as the summary map at the scene of the accident.

Plaintiff

At the time when a vehicle makes a left-hand turn, all vehicles in one lane and two lanes have stopped so that the plaintiff vehicle can make a left-hand turn.

C. On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 1,403,400 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged as above and the evidence revealed earlier, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, while driving the above road in front of the right-hand and U-turned vehicle, was obliged to drive the vehicle on the left-hand and left-hand vehicle in a smooth way while neglecting such duty of care, resulting in the said traffic accident while driving the three-lanes of the above road in a state where the said vehicle is not bound enough without due care.

On the other hand, according to the evidence above, the plaintiff's driver did not commit an error that could be considered as the cause of the above traffic accident, since the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle did not commit an error because the driver did not commit the above traffic accident.

Although the plaintiff's vehicle must turn to the left on the pedestrian signal, the defendant asserts that the front signal prior to the pedestrian signal has been negligent in moving to the left immediately after the red turn.

However, even if the plaintiff's vehicle started to turn to the left as the defendant's assertion, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff's vehicle left to the left at the early stage.