1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A and B automobiles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile mutual aid insurance contract with C business taxi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 17:10 on March 7, 2013, A driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and tried to enter the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the opposite part of the passage of the three-lane Do Do Do Do Do Do Do ro-ro in the front of the city of Won-si, the city of Won-si, by driving the Defendant’s vehicle, and driving the Defendant’s vehicle in the opposite part of the traffic.

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

On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,240,000,000, excluding the insured person’s principal share, out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul's evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s argument that the instant accident place constitutes a sloping intersection as defined in Article 2 subparag. 13 of the Road Traffic Act, since two or more roads crossing, there was no regulation prohibiting entry into the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the effect that the Defendant’s vehicle cannot cross the instant vehicle on the one-way road in which the vehicle was in progress, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeding along the one-way road is in violation of the Road Traffic Act.

In addition, at the time of the instant accident, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle was negligent in neglecting his duty at the time of the accident, and it is reasonable to deem that the negligence ratio is 30%. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 372,00,000, which is the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to A.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the point of the accident of this case is the course in the market adjacent to both sides of one-way traffic.