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 a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor regarding the Seoul rocketing taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance agreement with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor regarding C Two-wheeled Motor Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On May 28, 2014, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle at around 18:10, and sent straight lines from the academic dynamic distance to the 4-lane of the 652-lane road in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, to the intersection of the above private distance to the 3-lane of the three-lane road in the front direction of the Defendant vehicle while passing through the intersection of the above private distance and passing through the intersection of the above private distance to the 3-lane of the road in the front direction. The driver of the Defendant vehicle, before the Defendant vehicle, driven the Plaintiff vehicle, who was parked at the 3-lane of the road along which the Defendant vehicle entered the front direction from the Gyeong apartment room of Gangnam-gu, Seoul to the chill of the road where the Defendant vehicle entered the front direction.

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

On June 10, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the mutual aid amount of KRW 1,691,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident. On June 19, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 676,400 equivalent to the amount of the said mutual aid amount paid to the Plaintiff as the reimbursement amount.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 8, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the parties’ assertion (i) the instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s driver of the vehicle with sufficient speed, which was driven by the Defendant, starting first before the signal is changed, and neglecting his duty to stop at a speed, after coming from the intersection to the signal going beyond the stop line and predicting the signal.

Therefore, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant, is the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.