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 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. At around 15:30 on March 26, 2015, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle driven the Defendant’s vehicle into the front door of the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the vehicle back to the right space of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the vehicle, driving the vehicle back to the right space of the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the vehicle back to the same room, and driving the front door part of the Defendant’s seat, driving the vehicle, driving the vehicle in front of the Defendant’s seat, driving the vehicle, driving the vehicle in front of the Defendant’s seat, driving the vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the vehicle in front of the direction.

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

On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 907,000 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the evidence revealed earlier, the accident in this case appears to have occurred while trying to make a right-hand way at the right space of the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the judgment. Thus, the accident in this case appears to have occurred when the Defendant’s negligence was committed by the Defendant’s driver who attempted to make a right-hand way while attempting to make a right-hand way by moving to the right space of the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the right-hand, and the accident in this case occurred when the Defendant’s driver’s negligence was committed. In full view of the accident circumstance recognized earlier, the situation of the accident in this case, the collision level of the Defendant’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, and the degree of the collision level

Therefore, the defendant has a duty of performance since May 6, 2015, which corresponds to the ratio of negligence of the defendant vehicle (=907,000 won x 50%) to the plaintiff, and the defendant has a duty of performance from May 6, 2015, which is the payment date of the plaintiff's insurance money.