1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 14:20 on May 18, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle left to the left at the seat of the 1400-distance Intersection and the Information and Communications Policy Research Institute at the 1400-distance Intersection: (a) there was an accident of collision with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which had been making a large turn to the bank from the 1st page of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the 1st page of the 1st page of the 1st page of the 1400-distance Intersection.

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

On June 19, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 246,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion that the accident of this case occurred by the driver of the defendant's vehicle who made a right-hand turn to the left without properly verifying the plaintiff's vehicle that entered the intersection in accordance with the new subparagraph, while the defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle was at least 40% of the fault at the right-hand turn to the left at the intersection in violation of the cross-section passage method

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts finding and the evidence mentioned above, namely, the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) entered the intersection in which the electric direction signal was red; and (b) in such a case, the Defendant’s vehicle driver entered the intersection first and made a move of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to turn left at the left, despite the fact that the Defendant’s driver had a duty of care to drive, said vehicle entered the intersection as a second lane in which the damage occurred; and (c) made a right-hand bypass.