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 B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On July 12, 2017, at around 18:29, the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs from the window of the creative economy complex to the eart-side, along the three-lane of the front side of the Hanscar-gu apartment complex located in Busan Northern-dong, Daegu Northern-do.

On the other hand, while the defendant vehicle, which was driven in the same direction as that of the front intersection of the above apartment, stops in the front intersection of the above apartment, there was an accident where the plaintiff vehicle moved in the direction of the defendant vehicle and the left side of the plaintiff vehicle and the right side part of the defendant vehicle are contacted (hereinafter “the accident in this case”).

C. On November 22, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 3,768,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 5, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding ahead of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the three-lanes where the right-hand and right-hand is possible, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted overtaking through a narrow space between the Defendant’s vehicle and India.

In light of the fact that the accident of this case occurred, the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred by the principal negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who attempted to overtake in an unreasonable manner without permission.

However, it is recognized that the driver of the defendant vehicle has neglected his/her duty of care to ascertain the right side of the direction, and the ratio of negligence between the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle shall be 70%:30%.

Therefore, the defendant vehicle.