The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has concluded a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On January 16, 2019, around 11:19, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflicted with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly engaged in the straight-line signal at the intersection of private distance in the vicinity of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, at two-lanes adjacent to the straight-line signal.

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

The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,310,230 among the passengers of the Plaintiff vehicle KRW 1,249,540 (including KRW 364,520, and KRW 500,000) among the passengers of the Plaintiff vehicle, KRW 1,249,540 (including KRW 679,540, and KRW 300,000,000), and KRW 12,372,450 for the passengers of the Defendant vehicle, respectively.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, video of Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, it is possible to turn to the left at the time of green light signal at a place where a non-protective circuit sign is marked. Thus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle cannot be deemed to have violated the signal.

However, the left left-hand turn should be made to the left-hand turn from the opposite direction so that the vehicle does not interfere with the vehicle that comes straight in accordance with the vehicle progress signal, but the driver of the plaintiff vehicle is negligent in neglecting such duty and making a left-hand turn to the left-hand turn without properly examining the move of the straight-on vehicle, and the negligence seems to be the main reason for the occurrence of the accident in this case.

However, when entering the intersection, the defendant's vehicle, who is straight through the intersection where the non-protection line is allowed, also has the duty of care to drive with the movement of the opposite vehicle.