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. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile owned and driven by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the F New Airport vehicle for E driving (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 16, 2018, at the time of permanent residence, the three-distances located in the west-gu Si, Hadong-gu, the Plaintiff vehicle left to the left at the right-hand road on the lower side of the sloping bridge, and the Defendant vehicle at the right-hand turn to the right-hand turn at the lower side of the sloping road (hereinafter “instant accident”) caused an accident that conflicts between the front front part of the Plaintiff vehicle and the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On January 23, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,337,300 insurance money to the insured on account of the instant accident.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute; entry or video of evidence A2-6; entry or video of evidence B 1-9; purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In light of the circumstances surrounding the instant accident, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care on the front side and the left-hand turn of the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, etc., and due to the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care on the front side and left-hand side, etc., it is reasonable to view the Plaintiff’s driver’s liability ratio to 70%, and the Defendant’s driver’s liability ratio to 30%.

As to this, the plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff's vehicle did not have the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The plaintiff's statement of Gap evidence No. 1 (which seems to be merely a drawing drawn up) is insufficient to recognize it.