1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a motor vehicle insurance contract with D with respect to C Motor Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

B. Around 18:05 on February 1, 2020, D driven the Defendant’s vehicle and moved to the right-hand side of the F apartment from the shooting distance front of the E apartment in Yangnam-si, Yangyangnam-si, and met the G H car owned by the Plaintiff who was sent to the left-hand turn at the right-hand turn (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

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

On February 8, 2020, the Plaintiff spent KRW 2,180,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

G on September 23, 2020, transferred to the Plaintiff all damage claims against the Defendant equivalent to the repair cost due to the instant accident. On September 25, 2020, G notified the Defendant of the assignment of the above claim, and around that time, the above notification was delivered to the Defendant.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Plaintiff’s asserted vehicle was sent to the left turn at the two-lanes where the left turn is possible, and the Defendant’s vehicle was sent to the left turn. However, since the Defendant’s vehicle was bypassing the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by violating the intersection traffic method under the Road Traffic Act, the front, rear, and rear fences of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked, the instant accident occurred by the Defendant’s driver’s negligence.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay the plaintiff the repair cost of the plaintiff vehicle 2,180,000 won and damages for delay.

B. The plaintiff's alleged vehicle did not turn left at the first and second lanes, but at the third lanes, the straight straight line, and the defendant's vehicle could have sufficiently known the defendant's vehicle that was bypass prior to the occurrence of the accident in this case, but neglected the duty to turn back.