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 an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”) and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On April 1, 2015, around 14:50, A stopped at a two-lane crossing on the two-lane road near the Handong Enterprise Bank in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, and tried to make a right-hand turn, and it conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle that attempted to make a right-hand turn at the intersection.

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

On May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,225,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident was entirely caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and the Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff’s driver was negligent.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each video of the evidence Nos. 5, 5, and 2, namely, ① a two-lane that the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven is a two-lane that can make a right-hand and right-hand turn, ② the Defendant’s vehicle is an exclusive left-hand turn-on, ② the Defendant’s vehicle is driving along the one-lane, and ③ the Plaintiff’s vehicle is attempting to right-hand as it is while driving along the one-lane; ③ Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops even though it was possible to attempt a right-hand turn in light of the traffic situation at the time, but the signal apparatus was changed to a right-hand signal, and continues driving after a stop at the road level of five seconds even if it was changed to a right-hand signal. Accordingly, it appears that there is room for misunderstanding the Defendant’s vehicle at the later side as stopping at the intersection.