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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 18:00 on February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle left the left at the peace-ro 306 Howon apartment at the front of the Sungwon apartment at the front of the 306 Sungwon apartment, and it conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly left the front side of the madung apartment at the front of the madung-do.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff’s vehicle started in front of the yellow signal entering the left-hand signal, and the Defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection in the direction red signal.

At the time both vehicles conflict, the left turn signal was sent in the direction of the vehicle of the plaintiff and the red signal was sent in the direction of the defendant vehicle.

C. By November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 24,398,520 under the pretext of medical expenses, etc., and KRW 5,960,60 under the pretext of repair expenses.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1, 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As can be seen by the above facts of recognition, the instant accident occurred due to the primary negligence of Defendant vehicle entering the intersection in red flaps.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle as 35:65 in full view of all the circumstances including the circumstances of the above accident, etc., as the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle had been negligent in starting in advance before the left-hand turn signal enters, and as such, contributed to the occurrence of the above accident and the expansion of damage.

Therefore, the defendant, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, has an objection to the existence and scope of the defendant's performance obligation from November 20, 2015, which is the day following the final payment date, to May 25, 2016.