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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 16:55 on May 2, 2018, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving a two-lane among the four-lanes in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, the Plaintiff’s driver shocked the right side part of the Defendant’s vehicle running at the intersection into the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 504,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (excluding KRW 200,000 for self-payment) as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts and the evidence revealed as to the cause of the claim, the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the defendant vehicle, which failed to properly look at the movement of the plaintiff vehicle while passing through the intersection by passing through the intersection after passing through the main fault of the plaintiff vehicle driving in the bend and the two-lanes of the road. In full view of the background leading up to the accident in this case, the situation leading up to the collision of the plaintiff and the defendant vehicle, the degree of violation of the duty of care of the plaintiff and the defendant vehicle, the degree of violation of the above duty of care of the plaintiff and the defendant vehicle, and there is no leading line inside the intersection, it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio is 80% of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle 20%.

However, the Plaintiff may claim against the Defendant only the amount calculated by deducting KRW 200,000 of the Plaintiff’s self-paid expenses from KRW 140,800 (=704,000 x 20%) equivalent to the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle among the Plaintiff’s self-paid expenses of KRW 504,000,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff as insurance money (i.e., KRW 504,000). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement is nonexistent.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.