1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On June 27, 2018, around 17:14, the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding along the two lanes by entering the intersection with the entrance of the fishery of the Sungpo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si. The Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the said intersection and proceeded along the said intersection with the first lane, and changed the said intersection to the two lanes in order to leave the said intersection in the high direction. During that process, the Plaintiff’s front side of the right side of the vehicle and the part adjacent to the Defendant’s left side of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On June 29, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,418,100 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle for the instant accident (200,000) as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s vehicle had entered the intersection from the intersection to the intersection of revolving, and thus, the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the intersection through the intersection should not interfere with the Plaintiff’s moving of the vehicle by temporary stop or concession operation, but at a rapid speed, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is passing ahead of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, even though it did not interfere with the Plaintiff’s moving of the vehicle through the intersection of revolving.

Therefore, since the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, the plaintiff has the right to claim the above insurance money against the defendant, who is the mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle, in accordance with Article 682 (1)

B. The facts acknowledged prior to the determination of negligence, Gap evidence Nos. 7 through 9, Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.