The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments, either in the absence of dispute between the parties, or in the entries or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 9 (including branch numbers).

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract, including one’s own automobile damage security agreement, with respect to D intent vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is a mutual aid insurer who entered into an automobile mutual aid agreement with the Defendant for E 25 tons truck (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 19, 2019, C driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 07:01, and entering the said intersection with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding in accordance with the straighten signal from the bend direction at the bend direction at the time of the entry into the said intersection by going through the unprotective line in the direct direction of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu in Gwangju-gu, Busan.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On November 1, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance money equivalent to KRW 4,141,960, excluding KRW 500,000, out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. Existence and scope of liability for indemnity; and

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who entered the said intersection with the knowledge that the Defendant’s vehicle was entering the said intersection in accordance with the straight signal, but in full view of the overall purport of the aforementioned recognition and the evidence duly admitted, the instant accident appears to have entered the said intersection in order to reach the said intersection by the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle who entered the said intersection in order to reach the said intersection, even if the Defendant appeared to have seen the situation where the two direction signal is in operation, and even if the Defendant appeared to move to the said intersection in the direction signal, it would be unreasonable to view that the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who entered the said intersection and the two other vehicles were prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle rather than the Plaintiff’s vehicle.