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

B. Around 12:43 on May 23, 2015, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the left at the intersection of Tut-type Tro-distance, the part of the front front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was left directly from the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked with the front front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.

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

Due to the instant accident, C, the passenger of the Defendant vehicle, suffered an injury falling under Class 14-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act [Attachment Table 1], and the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 1,238,950 as medical expenses, etc. by June 19, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted and determined that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the ratio of negligence between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle to 9:1, and even if not, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of negligence between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle is 9:1 in light of the circumstances of the accident in this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to claim that the plaintiff is 123,890 won, equivalent to 10% of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff, and damages for delay.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle 9:1. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Furthermore, the following circumstances recognized by the evidence mentioned above, namely, the Defendant’s vehicle was set up in a three-lane radius, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle can pass along only one vehicle.