1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,445,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 8, 2019 to February 2, 2021.

1. Basic facts

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 business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On July 14, 2019, the insured person of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 06:07, and passes through the intersection without the signal apparatus on the side of the road near Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu. However, it conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle that was on the right side from the left side of the proceeding (hereinafter “instant accident”).

In the accident of this case, the plaintiff's vehicle suffered damages to the front part of the driver's seat, etc., and the defendant's vehicle suffered damages to the front part of the left part.

(d)

On August 7, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 39,400,000 insurance money to the part of the insured for losses incurred by the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, Eul evidence No. 3, video, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle is the right-hand side of the Defendant’s entry vehicle, that is, it cannot be determined to be continuous only with relatively rapid driving, and that the instant accident is caused by one’s negligence, and thus, the Defendant is seeking full payment of the insurance money already paid.

2) In light of the fact that the accident place is an intersection of the same street width without signal apparatus, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is excessive and speeded, and the Defendant did not perform it before entering the intersection, it is reasonable to view the liability ratio as 45% on the Plaintiff’s side and 55% on the Defendant’s side, as determined by the committee for deliberation on disputes over indemnity.

DaNN

B. Determination of the ratio of liability: The following circumstances revealed by the Plaintiff’s 45% on the part of the Defendant, the Defendant’s 5% on the part of the Defendant, the evidence Nos. 7, and the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the video of the evidence Nos. 26(3) of the Road Traffic Act, namely, the vehicle seeking to enter an intersection where traffic is not controlled, at the same time.