1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. In fact, the Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with respect to the vehicle D (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with E and F vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

② On March 5, 2019, around 13:23, 2019, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the intersection of the side road (hereinafter “instant intersection”) with the neighboring house located at the center of the Sinsan-dong, Busan-dong (hereinafter “instant intersection”), and shocked the front part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which passed the said intersection from the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle to the front part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On April 10, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,620,500 as insurance money to the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost.

[Reasons for Recognition] Items A and 12 of Evidence Nos. 1 and 12 of this Act, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the instant intersection first, the Defendant’s vehicle did not reduce speed and shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle by entering the said intersection. The instant accident is caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the above insurance money to the plaintiff as a reimbursement.

B. The Defendant’s vehicle has the right to preferentially pass along the instant intersection, rather than the Plaintiff’s vehicle, given that it had been driving on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle more wide width than the road driven by the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff's vehicle has entered the intersection rapidly in violation of the duty to temporarily stop for pedestrians crossing the road, and it is reasonable to 30% of the negligence ratio of the driver of the defendant's vehicle in relation to the accident in this case.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The following facts are revealed by comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged as above and the purport of all the evidence presented earlier.