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

Plaintiff

On June 7, 2016, around 17:29, the driver of the vehicle shocked the right side of the defendant vehicle, which passed the intersection from the left side of the course of the plaintiff vehicle to the right side, to the front part of the plaintiff vehicle.

On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff paid 5,320,000 won to the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 9, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of both claims;

A. The instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection first, and the Defendant’s vehicle late entering the intersection continued to proceed. Since the Defendant’s driver’s negligence is higher, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement equivalent to KRW 4,256,000, which is 80% of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff against the Defendant.

B. Defendant vehicle entered the road with a wide width, first, and the part of the Plaintiff vehicle that entered the road was shocked. The negligence of Plaintiff vehicle driver is larger than that of the Plaintiff vehicle.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the site of accident was an intersection without signal apparatus, ② the Defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection is unclear, but at that time, the front side was almost the intersection, ③ the Plaintiff’s vehicle was entering the intersection, ③ the front part was damaged by the Defendant’s vehicle on the right side, ④ the road in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked in the two edge parking zone, ④ the vehicle was parked in the two edge parking zone, and ⑤ the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have not been completely secured.