1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A (K7) B (LL) of the Plaintiff insured vehicle at the time of the accident, around 00:01 on February 15, 2018 at the time of the accident, when the Plaintiff insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) entered the said intersection in order to move to the right exit while entering the said intersection, the Defendant Insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) entering the above intersection in the front part of the left part of the vehicle, which entered the front part of the vehicle as the front part of the left part of the cover insurance money, and 200,000,000 won (based on recognition); the entry and video of the evidence Nos. 1 through 7; and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments of the evidence No. 1 to No. 7.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s negligence on the instant accident was 100%, and claimed the full amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff, and damages for delay from the day following the payment date.

A driver of a vehicle who intends to enter the intersection shall be obliged to temporarily stop or yield so as not to obstruct the passage of the vehicle, after checking in advance whether there is a vehicle already driven along the intersection, and if there is such vehicle, he/she shall be obliged to temporarily stop or yield so as

In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the Defendant vehicle, in view of the following: (a) the Defendant vehicle was in a direct position and did not temporarily stop or temporarily stop in the process of entering the workplace to the intersection; and (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle continued to proceed while continuing to enter the said intersection despite the difference; and (c) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was concealed with the Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter the said intersection.

However, according to CCTV video (Evidence No. 4) and the black image of the Defendant’s vehicle (Evidence No. 5), the Plaintiff’s vehicle could have sufficiently known that the Defendant’s vehicle is driving on the right side while driving a revolving intersection.