1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident, around 07:50 on June 8, 2018, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of a shooting distance collision near the F Pharmacy located in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, becomes one-lane intersection, and the Defendant vehicle was in the presence of each left-hand turn in the front of the Plaintiff vehicle immediately before the left-hand turn. Even if the vehicle was changed to the left-hand turn, the Defendant vehicle did not make a left-hand turn, and the Plaintiff vehicle driver attempted to turn to the left-hand turn while passing to the left-hand side of the Defendant vehicle, and the accident of this case conflicts with the Defendant vehicle at the latest left-hand turn. The accident of this case was destroyed by the first part of the Plaintiff vehicle and the front part of the driver’s seat of the Defendant vehicle. The payment of insurance money was made on June 20, 2018. There is no dispute over the fact that there is no ground for dispute, as set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4, and 1 through 3 through 3 through 3 through video.

2. All vehicles in front of the plaintiff's argument that they left the left pursuant to the new subparagraph, and even if the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle calls for a warning, the vehicle was stopped as it was, and the accident of this case occurred when the plaintiff's vehicle left the left at the latest while the vehicle is driving ahead of the defendant's vehicle and left the left, so the accident of this case occurred. Thus, the accident of this case is deemed that the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle were concurrently caused by the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle, and it is reasonable to view the error ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle as 40:60. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 1,058,460 won equivalent to the fault ratio of the defendant's vehicle out of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff

3. In full view of the above-mentioned evidence, the defendant vehicle and the defendant vehicle with the left-hand turn signal given the whole purport of the arguments.