1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

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

B. Around 15:20 on August 31, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was going to the left at the right angle of the Defendant’s vehicle along the same lane while going to the left at the right angle of the two lanes between the two lanes in the intersection of the shooting distance in the Jyang-dong, Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

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

On October 26, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,021,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's vehicle has left left turn at a one-lane left turn, and that even if the defendant's vehicle tried to turn to the left, it was negligent in failing to operate the direction point, the fault ratio of the defendant's vehicle at least 70% in the accident of this case is reached at least 70%.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred as the plaintiff's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeding along the two-lanes and began to turn to the left at the crosswalk before entering the intersection, and the Defendant’s vehicle is deemed to have failed to operate the direction, etc., but thereby interfered with the Plaintiff’s course.

This case cannot be concluded to have tried to go straight from a one-lane or a left-hand turn, etc.