1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle A (hereinafter the plaintiff vehicle), and the defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter the defendant vehicle).

B. On July 12, 2014, around 15:05, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was traveling along the four-lanes in the vicinity of the shooting distance intersection in the middle-gu, Daegu Eastdong shopping, Daegu, had a collision with the Defendant’s vehicle in the five-lanes to four-lanes, and a collision between C (three-lanes) and D (four-lanes) where the signal atmosphere was located in the front bank after the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle in the four-lanes. In the event of the collision with the foregoing two-lanes.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case")

On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 2,335,80 as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred with the wind that the vehicle of this case was changed from five lanes to four lanes, while the vehicle of this case was located in the fourth lane, and the fault ratio of the driver of the defendant vehicle of this case is 90%. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 2,102,220 won (=2,35,800 won x 0.9) equivalent to the fault ratio of the driver of the defendant vehicle of this case, out of the insurance money paid to the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred because the defendant's vehicle prior to the accident of this case had changed from five lanes to four lanes, while the signal, etc. was changed to a stop signal, while the signal, etc. was stopped in the former intersection, but the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle was faced with the defendant's vehicle while driving at a roadside and failed to stop the vehicle again, and the accident of this case occurred because it was caused by the previous negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle, the defendant is not obliged to pay the compensation amount.

3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of pleadings to each entry in subparagraphs B-1 to 4, i.e.: