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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a motor vehicle insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On March 27, 2013, at around 23:05, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was making a left-hand turn in violation of the transmission signal at the two-lane intersection in front of C in Pakistan, the Defendant Otoba, who entered the intersection by driving ahead of the vehicle which was suspended beyond the median line from the first lane in the same direction (hereinafter “instant accident”), was injured by E who was on board Defendant Otoba in the instant accident.

C. By December 26, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 19,323,280 to E as mutual aid money under the pretext of medical treatment and agreement.

In a criminal case against Defendant Obane driver (Korean District Court Decision 2014No1754), the court convicted the above driver of the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against the above driver on the grounds that the above driver's negligence in overtaking or the causal relation with the accident of this case cannot be recognized, and found him guilty of the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against the above driver.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant accident occurred between the error of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s violation of signal signal and the violation of prohibition of overtaking and unauthorized licenses for Defendant Oba, and the error of driving under influence of alcohol. The liability ratio is 50:50. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the mutual aid money paid to the Plaintiff as the amount of reimbursement, the amount of KRW 9,61,640 corresponding to the Defendant’s liability ratio (=19,323,280 + 50%) and the delay damages.

B. We examine the following circumstances, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the above basic facts and the aforementioned evidence: