1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and the appeal shall be 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On June 18, 2018, 01:08, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection in the direction of the F Hospital located in the front of the E apartment complex in the front of the city bus terminal in the direction of the F Hospital at the direction of the F Hospital, which is going straight straight, the front part of the Defendant’s front part of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was directly going to the intersection in the direction of the yellow sand shooting distance from the front right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked by the front part of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the direction of the yellow sand shooting distance (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On September 5, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 13,580,00 ( KRW 17,600,000 x 80% x 50% x 500,000) remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 500,00 of the Plaintiff’s self-paid expenses, among total damages of KRW 17,60,000 due to the instant accident.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time when the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the instant accident intersection, the Defendant’s vehicle was at least 30 meters away from the intersection, but was able to find the Plaintiff’s vehicle going to the intersection more than the speed of the restriction, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle fell short of the aspect of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As such, the instant accident was caused by one’s negligence or by negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

even if such ratio does not exceed 20%

The argument is asserted.

2) As to this, if the Plaintiff’s vehicle temporarily stops in a stop line due to red on-and-off signals, the Defendant cannot enter the intersection rather than the Defendant’s vehicle.