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. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the plaintiff's vehicle not more than C.

the defendant's vehicle is "Defendant's vehicle" below D vehicle.

B. On January 15, 2018, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was directly in the vicinity of the Geum-dong Office of Sung-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, the insurer who entered into each automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff is facing one another in front of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle coming from Tin-si crossing and the left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s driving direction.

hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case"

(c) On January 25, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,050,00 (except for KRW 200,000 of the Plaintiff’s own share) for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the insurance proceeds. [The Plaintiff did not dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the purport of the overall statement or video and oral argument as stated in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1-4, 6, and 9.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to Article 31(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, the driver of any motor vehicle shall slowly drive the motor vehicle at an intersection where the traffic is not controlled, and according to Article 31(2)1 of the Road Traffic Act, all drivers of the motor vehicles shall temporarily stop in the intersection where the traffic is not controlled, the traffic is not verifiable, or the traffic is frequent.

On the other hand, according to Article 26 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the driver of a vehicle who intends to enter an intersection where traffic is not controlled shall yield the course to other vehicles when there are other vehicles already entering the intersection.

In full view of the above facts and all the evidence mentioned above, the following facts and circumstances revealed by the Plaintiff’s vehicle, namely, the Defendant’s vehicle from the left alley of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, even if he was in direct presence of the straight line, did not yield the course to the Plaintiff’s vehicle and did not perform the duty of fronting the left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the location of the instant accident is not a traffic control but can not be confirmed.