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. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is each insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 08:50 on November 4, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle was making a left-hand turn at the speed more than 768 U.S. Sin-dong, U.S.-dong, U.S.-dong, U.S.-dong, U.S. (hereinafter “U.S.”), and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was directly engaged in the three-lane exclusive lanes from the right-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle at the right-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle, was facing the front-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the driver’s seat.

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

On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,660,200 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (the self-charges of KRW 50,000) as insurance money.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers in the case of additional number), Eul evidence 1, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred by one’s negligence on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle that made a left-hand turn to the left-hand turn at the right-hand speed at the signal intersection. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the insurance money of KRW 16,660,200 and the damages for delay thereof paid to the Plaintiff as a reimbursement. (2) The instant accident occurred when the Plaintiff’s vehicle is straightened, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is straightened with the exclusive lane prior to right-hand, and the Defendant’s vehicle was not checked to the right-hand left-hand turn. In light of the circumstances of the accident, the Plaintiff’s negligence constitutes 60% on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged in full view of the above-mentioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle does not reduce the speed while driving the exclusive lane that is prohibited from direct exhaustion.