1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a traffic accident in which the part of the f.p.p. vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) that entered into an insurance contract with the Plaintiff and the part of G.M.6 vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)’s front front of the left left side of the vehicle that entered into an insurance contract with the Plaintiff at the S.M. (hereinafter “instant accident”). In the instant accident, even though the negligence of the Defendant vehicle driver competes with 30%, the Defendant’s decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive by filing a claim for compensation on the premise that the Defendant’s negligence was 100% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver’s negligence. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the said decision of performance recommendation should be denied.

2. In full view of the statement No. 9, Gap evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 3, and Eul evidence No. 6, the driver of the defendant vehicle entered the above intersection and make a left-hand turn at the above intersection. However, it can be acknowledged that the accident in this case occurred while the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who was trying to make a right-hand from the left side of the vehicle in the direction of the vehicle driving on the road enters the intersection with the guiding line going through the intersection in order to avoid the vehicle parked on the right side of the road. According to the above facts, it is difficult to see that the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle in relation to the accident in this case, and it is reasonable to see that the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle. On the premise that the plaintiff vehicle attempted to proceed directly at the above intersection, the statement No. 2

Ultimately, the plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to concurrent negligence of the defendant driver of this case is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed on the grounds that it is not reasonable, and Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to the burden of litigation costs.