1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established with individual taxi transport business entities located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City as its members, and has set up an ordinary meeting within the association and carries out the business of compensating for damages in accordance with the provisions of the ordinary meeting and the terms and conditions in cases where the damage was inflicted on the vehicles owned by the member due to an accident during the period of possession, use, and management of the vehicles. Nonparty A is the owner of B cab (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and its member is the Plaintiff’s member.

The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with C vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On September 19, 2015, at around 15:30 on September 19, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked with the Defendant’s vehicle moving back to the direction of the luminous KTX in the direction of the luminous field, while making the left turn from the direction of the luminous KTX in the direction of the luminous field. Accordingly, there was a conflict between the front left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff directly paid KRW 1,100,000,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that occurred due to the instant accident to New Zealand Co., Ltd.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred due to negligence in violation of the duty of care to make a temporary stop in the direction of KTX at the intersection of this case and to yield the course to other vehicles. In the end, it is deemed that the Defendant’s allegation was caused by negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant shall apply mutatis mutandis the subrogation provision to the plaintiff pursuant to Articles 664 and 682 of the Commercial Act.