1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,130,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from March 15, 2016 to May 20, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On February 16, 2016, around 19:22, the Plaintiff’s vehicle had a collision between the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front side of the Plaintiff’s left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which attempted to turn back a non-protective unit in one lane among the three-lanes of the opposite parts of the e-mail, while driving in one lane of the two-lanes of the arm’s length of the arm’s length. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(See attached Form No. 300). (c)

On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 32,130,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap 1-5 evidence (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although a vehicle that intends to turn to the left in the area prior to the meeting of the non-protective left is required to turn to the left in a manner that does not obstruct the passage of a straight-on vehicle while paying attention to the vehicle from the opposite direction according to the vehicle traffic signal, according to the above recognized facts, the driver of the defendant vehicle is responsible for compensating the loss incurred to the plaintiff vehicle because the vehicle did not properly examine the movement of the vehicle of the plaintiff who proceeds from the straight-on signal, and thus, the driver of the defendant vehicle is liable for compensating for the loss caused to the plaintiff vehicle. The defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, who has acquired the right to indemnity in accordance with the legal principles of subrogation by paying the repair

(In light of the conflict between the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and that the shock place is more than half of the Plaintiff’s intersection, it is difficult to recognize the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Accordingly, the Defendant is therefore difficult.