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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to B taxi (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant taxi”).

B. On March 16, 2014, at around 11:00, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the direction of 6:3:00 a.m. adjacent to the Taepung Middle School, the Plaintiff’s taxi attempted to make a U-turn on the opposite lane of the road (3:0), where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was going to the direction of 3:0 a.m., the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left side.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case")

By April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 850,990 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case is caused by the unilateral negligence of the defendant taxi driver who brought about the plaintiff's vehicle stopped while trying for a U-turn, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the full amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff as the indemnity amount. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case is caused by the concurrent negligence of both drivers, such as the failure to drive the concession of the vehicle, the failure to drive the vehicle, and the failure to drive the vehicle on the front side or the negligence on the part of the driver, and that the rate of the driver's negligence of both vehicles should be 50:

The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the inquiry reply to the inquiry reply to the head of the Daejeon District Police Agency of the party branch, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including paper numbers), and the fact inquiry inquiry reply to the head of the Daejeon District Police Agency of the party branch, namely, the plaintiff's taxi was parked in the opposite road of the two-lane road where the defendant taxi stopped in order to look at the surrounding area while standing.