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 circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

On June 9, 2018, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident and around 16:30 on June 16, 2018, the vehicle in the situation of the collision with the private-distance intersection near Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City due to the cross-road crossing, which is one-lane, is entering the intersection for the right-hand advancement, while the vehicle is in conflict with the Defendant vehicle that is going on the right-hand side from the left-hand side of the vehicle of the Plaintiff and the front-hander of the Defendant vehicle are destroyed, respectively. The insurance money paid KRW 400,000.

B. The judgment of the first instance court judged the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 50:50, and calculated the Plaintiff’s amount of reimbursement as 200,000 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The party's assertion 1) The vehicles entering the intersection from the intersection to the intersection on the way of passage by the plaintiff's intersection should yield the passage to the main vehicle as prescribed. However, the defendant's vehicle without temporary suspension entered the intersection from the intersection to the intersection and conflict with the plaintiff's vehicle in the straight line. Therefore, the accident in this case is due to the former negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle. 2) The vehicle without the defendant's signal must temporarily stop or yield the intersection before the entry to the intersection and drive safely. The plaintiff's vehicle did not perform its duty of care.

Although the defendant's vehicle has gone through the road, it is the preferential right of passage since it was the entry of the road, and even if it was found and stopped the plaintiff's vehicle coming from the right side after entering the intersection, the plaintiff's vehicle after entering the intersection did not avoid the situation.

In this regard, the first instance judgment that considers the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle as 50% is reasonable.

B. The following are revealed by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings.