1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff’s B-owned vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle C owned by Hyundai Transport (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On July 25, 2017, around 22:53, an accident occurred, where the front part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was immediately driven by a signal apparatus at the private distance intersection in the Dong-dong Civil Market in Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, and the front part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly driven by green signal from the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,607,40 (including self-charges) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, which the Defendant’s vehicle left the intersection by neglecting the duty of front-way driving and the duty of safe driving, while neglecting the duty of safe driving, and the responsibility ratio is 30%. As such, the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the liability ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle (i.e., KRW 782,220, which is the ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle’s liability (=2,607,400 x 30%) and damages for delay.

(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the previous negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who shocked the Defendant’s vehicle that was in normal direct driving according to green signal while driving over the speed without temporarily stopping at the intersection, disregarding the intersection signal, and without temporarily stopping at the intersection. The Defendant’s vehicle did not have predictability and possibility of avoidance.