1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to Nonparty A and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On February 16, 2013, around 13:05, the wife D driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, from the shooting distance of the large-scale apartment located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, at a speed of about 10km per hour depending on two lanes among the four-lane road in the direction of the department department department department, and the first crosswalk was passed after the end of the first crosswalk. Around February 16, 2013, the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, who used the internship in the opposite lane, was shocking after the left side of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle running along the front body of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,120,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, purport of whole pleading

2. According to the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant’s vehicle did not appear at the end of the U.S. branch in the order of U.S. waiting vehicle for U.S. U.S. U.S., but did not appear at the end of the U.S. branch in the U.S. branch in the U.S., under the circumstance of two vehicles waiting for U.S. to the U.S., the U.S. branch in the U.S. branch in the U.S. base, and the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is going on the opposite lane, was shocked by the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle. Although the location of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle did not consider the Plaintiff’s vehicle going on the opposite lane due to the frequent passage of the vehicle, and received the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle without being negligent in driving the vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s driver, as at the time, was a signal signal for the suspension of the U.S. branch.