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 concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 7, 2017, at around 19:20 on October 7, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle leading the three-lanes of the three-lanes of the three-lanes at the front Twit-type Intersection in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon.

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

On November 2, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,856,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

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

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant's vehicle should temporarily stop immediately before entering the intersection, and that the accident of this case occurred because the plaintiff's vehicle attempted to make a right of way excessively while trying to make a right of way to the plaintiff's vehicle, and therefore the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle could be recognized as the defendant's vehicle if he fulfilled his duty of care, but the accident of this case occurred while changing the course from the two lanes to the three lanes without any particular speed or brake.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., ① in the case of the right-hand right-hand side of the road, should proceed to the right-hand side of the road in advance (Article 25(1) of the Road Traffic Act). The instant accident occurred while attempting to make a right-hand side even though the Defendant’s driver verified the Plaintiff’s vehicle directly driving, and ② in the case of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to make a right-hand side. As such, the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to make a right-hand side.