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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A and Bexton vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with CK3 vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On February 1, 2016, around 18:40, an accident occurred, where the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle located at the intersection in front of the 6th apartment of Suwon-dong, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was straight from the right side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On July 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,502,040 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the said insurance contract.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 and 2

2. The driver of any motor vehicle who intends to drive a motor vehicle into the intersection where traffic is not controlled shall yield the right of way to other motor vehicles, when other motor vehicles are already traveling through the intersection (Article 26 (1) of the Road Traffic Act), and the driver of any motor vehicle shall slowly drive the motor vehicle in the intersection where traffic is not controlled;

(3) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s driver’s liability ratio reaches 70% of the Plaintiff’s driver’s liability ratio in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff’s driver appears to go slowly and entered the intersection in light of the distance and speed, etc.; and (b) the Defendant’s driver, who entered the intersection from the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the intersection at a rapid speed, appears to have contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damage by shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the left side direction; and (c) the Defendant’s driver’s liability ratio is reasonable.

Therefore, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1,051,420 corresponding to the ratio of liability of the Defendant’s driver among the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.