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. Basic facts

A. With respect to vehicles B food 508 owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with CK5 vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. A, around 20:20 on January 14, 2017, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and was proceeding from the Cheongju University to the Chungcheongbuk-do Office, U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., on the right side of the Plaintiff’s driving direction. However, there was an accident where the Defendant’s vehicle in the Mamaar was directly facing the Plaintiff’s driving direction to the left side of the Plaintiff’s driving direction, and the part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s right side of the vehicle was collisioned.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident", and the degree of the occurrence of the accident shall be as shown in the attached Form (A No. 3).

As an insurer A, the Plaintiff paid KRW 36,476,00 on March 16, 2017 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6, 8, 10, Gap evidence No. 11-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the instant intersection without signal, etc., and it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred while the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, despite having priority over the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle’s fault ratio was 70%. As such, the insurer under the Commercial Act seeks payment of KRW 25,533,200 (=36,476,000) out of the repair cost incurred by the Plaintiff by subrogation of the insurer under the Commercial Act.

(2) Since there is no ground to deem that the priority right at the intersection without Defendant’s signal, etc. is against the Defendant’s vehicle driving on the right side on the basis of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle exceeded the speed limit, it is reasonable to deem that the negligence of the Defendant

B. According to Article 26(1) of the Road Traffic Act, drivers of vehicles who intend to enter the intersection where traffic is not controlled have already been employed.