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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 11:20 on September 8, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle stopped from the new shot-ro 829 to the new shot-ro, Taedong-gu, Taedong-gu, 11:20, at the same time, from the direction of the Republic of Korea to the above intersection, the vehicle stopped from the first lane, which is the left-hand way, to the left-hand turn, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle also stopped by waiting for the left-hand turn at the right behind the Defendant’s vehicle immediately behind the same lane.

In the meantime, the defendant vehicle, which was proceeding along the above one-lane signal of the above intersection traffic signal, was driven by the defendant vehicle with the above one-lane traffic signal above the above one-lane line prior to the entry into the above intersection, was found and was driven by the opposite part. Accordingly, the plaintiff vehicle, which was proceeding the above one-lane in the defendant vehicle following the defendant vehicle, was a sudden operation, but the distance of the movement does not reach the front part of the plaintiff vehicle, and the rear part of the defendant vehicle was shocked by the rear part of the vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed to a total of KRW 670,100 for repair costs, and the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff’s repair company, etc. of KRW 536,080 equivalent to 80 per cent of the repair cost (=670,100 x 80 per cent).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s accident of this case, along with the negligence that the Plaintiff’s vehicle neglected the duty of Jeonju as well as the negligence that the Defendant vehicle attempted to make an illegal internship, and the fault ratio between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle was caused by the sudden negligence, and it is reasonable to view that the respective fault ratio between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and

Therefore, the defendant's share of the defendant's vehicle subrogated to the plaintiff.