1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. At around 14:20 on September 21, 201, B: (a) driven a C ASEAN car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and went into the intersection in front of the Seoul Southern-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, into two lanes; (b) while driving without sufficiently examining the left and right and the right and the right of the Plaintiff’s Epic car (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) in front of the left-hand part of the Defendant’s Epic car (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) in front of the left-hand part of the Plaintiff’s Epic car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) which was turned into one lane from the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle’s moving direction to the lower-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the loss of scarbage, scarbage, etc., and the damage of scarbal scarbal roots, etc., due to the instant accident.

The defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers), and the underlying facts as to recognition of the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant accident occurred due to the operation of the defendant vehicle. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

As to the instant accident, the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that they did not violate the signal at the time of each party, but there is no evidence to verify who did not have any CCTV or witness at the intersection, which is the point of the instant accident, and thus, there is no evidence to confirm who did not have any signal (it appears that the investigative agency did not know it), and the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s assertion of the signal violation of the other party vehicle is difficult to accept.

However, in light of all the circumstances, such as the background and shock of the instant accident, the Plaintiff had a negligence in driving, which did not perform the duty of safety care at the intersection at the time.