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 the insurer who has taken over the automobile insurance for CMW vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is the insurer who has taken over the automobile insurance for DW vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 06:40 on September 14, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven a road front of the Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu E-gu, Incheon. However, the Defendant’s vehicle, following the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was approaching the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while entering the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

At the time, the foregoing Round had a signboard "priority to revolving vehicles". D.

The Plaintiff paid 1,320,000 won to the insured with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5 through 9, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the accident of this case was caused by the total negligence of the defendant vehicle, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,320,000 of the insurance money equivalent to the repair cost paid by the plaintiff.

In light of the background of the accident as seen earlier and the shock level of the driving vehicle and the front and the Defendant vehicle, it is true that the negligence of the Defendant vehicle, which is basically not sufficiently considered the right of priority of the Plaintiff vehicle, which had been moved first in the way preceding the vehicle, is larger than that of the Defendant vehicle. However, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff vehicle driver fulfilled the duty of priority and safe driving.

In light of all the circumstances revealed in the instant case, it is reasonable to regard the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as 30% and the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle as 70%.

Thus, the defendant's 70% of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as well as 924,000 won and its scope from December 1, 2015 after the delivery date of the complaint of this case.