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. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 14, 2017, around 22:07, the Plaintiff’s vehicle collisions the Defendant’s vehicle that changed the lane from the fourth lane to the second lane on the fourth lane of the instant road while driving straight along the fourth lane near the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City).

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

In the instant accident, Nonparty E and Nonparty F, G, and H (hereinafter collectively referred to as “victims”) who have driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident were injured.

The Plaintiff paid 4,984,690 won in total to the victims of medical treatment expenses and insurance money in the name of compensation for damages.

(F) F 183,480 G 904,340 Won H 3,111,080 Won E 785,790 = 4,984,690 Won. Meanwhile, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 500,000 for each victim according to the liability insurance policy the Defendant joined by the owner of the above insurance proceeds. In the case of the Victim H, the limit of the treatment relationship amounting to class 12 for each victim’s injury supply is KRW 120,000.

E. The Plaintiff determined that the instant accident occurred in competition between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle’s negligence, and requested a deliberation to the International Association Automobile Insurance Claim Dispute Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”) in order to determine the rate of negligence of both vehicles. The Deliberation Committee decided that the ratio of negligence between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle was 20:80.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's main defense of safety has not gone through a dispute settlement procedure under a mutual agreement on the deliberation of a dispute over recourse against automobile insurance (hereinafter "the instant agreement").