1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the A-to-pubed vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff-to-pubed vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the B vehicle

B. On November 2, 2015, around 08:10, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered a three-way distance near D Hospital located in the Gyeong-si, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as soon as possible, immediately cut down on the right side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle, who entered the said three-way distance, shocked pedestrian E and F with the right direction in order to avoid the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

From November 9, 2015 to December 8, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,701,030 to E and F with medical expenses and agreed amount incurred from the instant accident.

【In light of the fact that there is no dispute, and the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 5 or the purport of the whole pleading of this case was determined, the accident of this case was eventually caused by negligence that the defendant's vehicle entered a three-distance road without properly examining the movement of the plaintiff's vehicle, despite the right of priority for passage through the above three-distances. The accident of this case caused the error of the defendant's vehicle as its main cause.

However, even though the plaintiff's vehicle should also closely examine the movement of other vehicles such as the defendant's vehicle, etc. while driving a three-distance, it is erroneous that it failed to perform such safety driving duty. In light of the background of the accident in this case, the shape of the above three-distance and road conditions, and the location of each vehicle at the time of the accident in this case, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of negligence between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle is 40:60.

Therefore, the Defendant, the insurer of the Plaintiff, is the Defendant’s vehicle, among the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident.