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 circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the Defendant’s vehicle is left left to the left at the intersection of the above place where the event occurred at the time of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle CD on October 8, 2018 at the time of the accident.

While the vehicle stops at the intersection of the vehicle, the plaintiff's vehicle also entered the intersection to the right side of the defendant's vehicle and suspended to the right side of the defendant's vehicle. The vehicle's front part of the plaintiff's vehicle, which was stopped on the right side of the defendant's vehicle in the process of finishing the left-hand turn after the body is resolved, is shocked with the part of loading the front part of the defendant's vehicle. The insurance money's payment of KRW 472,100,000, self-paid

B. In the instant accident, the Motor Vehicle Insurance Claim Deliberation Committee determined that the percentage of negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Motor Vehicle driver was 60:40.

C. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the foregoing decision, and the judgment of the first instance court maintained the decision on the ratio of negligence in the deliberation committee on the disputes over indemnity, but the judgment ordering the Defendant to pay the amount of KRW 68,840 and the delay damages to the Plaintiff, taking into account the self-charges paid by the Plaintiff’s driver.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 7 (including the number of each party), the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of and judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Plaintiff’s vehicle has already stopped on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Defendant’s driver, as the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, exercised due care, such as making a great turn to the left, taking into account the turning circle of the loading box attached to the Defendant’s vehicle. However, the instant accident occurred due to neglecting such duty of care.

Nevertheless, the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance that recognized that the plaintiff's vehicle was negligent by 60% with respect to the occurrence of the instant accident is unreasonable.

B. Determination A.