1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

In full view of the overall purport of arguments and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 6, and Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter "Plaintiff vehicle") and the defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter "Defendant vehicle"), ② the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle conflict between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle with the opposite side of the vehicle at Seopopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si around 12:40 on August 23, 2014; ③ according to the data described in the above accident situation at the time, the plaintiff vehicle conflicts with the defendant vehicle that entered the right side of the plaintiff vehicle and the front part of the defendant vehicle.

According to the above facts, the plaintiff's vehicle first entered the above intersection, and the defendant's vehicle that thereafter entered the intersection seems to have shocked the plaintiff's vehicle.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle is 20% on the plaintiff's side and 80% on the defendant's side.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 4,360,000 won, equivalent to 80% of the Defendant’s negligence, among the damages 5,450,000 won of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act, from September 4, 2014 to September 18, 2014, which is clear that the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint is the delivery date of the instant complaint, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

Although the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's vehicle was proceeding at a high speed, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

In addition, the defendant.