1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 26, 2016, around 18:10, an accident occurred that conflicts between the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s right side and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle following the left side of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 288,900 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The accident of this case occurred while the defendant vehicle prior to the plaintiff's argument confirmed that the defendant vehicle stops at the right edge, and the defendant vehicle is driving on the left side of the damage caused by the defendant vehicle. The accident of this case is caused by the negligence of the defendant vehicle driver who proceeded to the left side only without examining whether there is a vehicle moving behind the vehicle after stopping. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 288,900 and the damages for delay.

B. In light of the judgment, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that there was any negligence on the part of the Defendant vehicle driver in proceeding with the point of the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the location of the instant accident is a narrow house to the extent that one vehicle can pass, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was temporarily stopped in order to take into account the progress of the vehicle on which the Defendant vehicle used, was overtaking the Defendant vehicle.