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 entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with D buses (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 23, 2018, around 11:30, the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in the intersection of the Embs. Emb. Emb., depending on the two lanes between the three-lanes, and the Defendant’s vehicle, which stopped in the three-lane, while making a right-hand transit from the slope of the instant fire-fighting zone to the Embs. In line with the two-lanes.

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

On November 7, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,364,00 (excluding self-paid KRW 341,000) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 9, Eul's 1 or 2, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (i.e., the plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred because the defendant's vehicle did not discover the plaintiff's vehicle and just left the vehicle, while the plaintiff's vehicle did not normally make a round at the three-lane due to the stop of the defendant's vehicle and was making a round at the two-lanes. This is due to the whole negligence of the defendant's vehicle, and thus, the defendant, the insurer,

Shebly, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred when the Plaintiff’s vehicle was trying to change the lane or make a right-hand on the straight line where the right-hand is prohibited, and that the Defendant did not have any obligation to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement.

B. (1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to ignore and circumvent the direction of the tram on the two-lanes, the exclusive lane in which the right ofpass is prohibited, and (2) the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s ordinary change and the right ofpass are simultaneously made for any reason.