1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the vehicles B (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s Intervenor’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On June 9, 2016, around 11:23, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) was trying to cut off the truck parked on the side in front of the new king household complex at the time of Chosung-si; (b) while the vehicle behind the Defendant’s vehicle tried to enter the front right side of the Defendant’s vehicle; (c) the vehicle behind the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to enter the front right side of the vehicle; and (d) there was an accident attributable to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front part of the front part of the front part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”);

C. On July 13, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 879,880 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition】 Facts, Gap’s evidence 1, 3 through 7, Eul’s evidence 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff of the parties concerned asserted that the accident of this case occurred at the wind of the defendant's vehicle seeking to turn to the left, and that the negligence of the defendant's vehicle is at least 40%, and the defendant's vehicle following the defendant's vehicle intends to overtake the plaintiff's vehicle to turn to the right earlier than the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the accident of this case occurred and there is no negligence on the defendant's vehicle.

(b) According to the Road Traffic Act, all drivers of vehicles shall pass along the left side of the vehicle running ahead of it if they pass another vehicle (Article 21(1)), and if they intend to make a right-hand through the intersection, they shall pass along the right-hand side of the road in advance.

(Article 25(1). According to the facts acknowledged earlier and each of the above evidence, the Defendant’s vehicle was travelling along one lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding along the Defendant’s vehicle. However, the Defendant’s vehicle was on the side.