The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport and purport of the appeal

1. The purport of the claim;

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, either in the absence of a dispute between the parties, or in the entries or videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including the number with a branch number):

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with C to cover his/her own car damage with respect to D taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On August 4, 2018, at around 21:16, C, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the north by driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving it from the north to the north by F, and entered the private-distance intersection without the front signal apparatus of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G, according to the Madar H, the operation direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the left-hand side and collision with the Defendant’s vehicle moving to the right-hand at the said intersection (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the volume of the accident is as indicated in the attached Form.

(c)

On September 6, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,459,000 as insurance money, excluding KRW 200,000,000, out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. Existence and scope of the obligation for indemnity.

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively caused the accident of this case to be caused by the negligence of the other party’s driver.

However, in full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle who entered the said intersection without temporarily suspending the said intersection when neglecting the duty of the front side and the left side.

Since the plaintiff and the defendant are fully admitted, each of the above immunity claims is without merit.

If we look at the above judgment, the defendant is the insurance company related to the defendant's vehicle.