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. 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 20:00 on January 28, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and led the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the right side of the instant vehicle located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, while moving the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the right side of the friendly mountain basin, the Plaintiff’s driver shocked the part of the front front top top of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving ahead of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat in front of the front front front of the instant vehicle while driving the Defendant’s vehicle at the right side of the friendly mountain basin to the right side of the friendly mountain basin.

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

On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 992,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, the plaintiff's vehicle has been seriously affected by the entry of only one motor vehicle into the intersection into the three-lanes: Provided, That in light of the fact that the defendant's vehicle as well as the defendant's vehicle failed to perform the duty of front-time care and did not timely see the plaintiff's vehicle moving into the front-way bank, the accident in this case is recognized to be concurrently caused by the driver's negligence and the duty of front-time care of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle moving from the road to the first-lane, and it is reasonable to view the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle's fault ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle to 7:3, considering the situation of the accident in this case, the collision level and degree of the original defendant's vehicle as seen earlier.

Therefore, the defendant paid to the plaintiff.