1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. In fact, the Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a motor vehicle insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

Plaintiff

On July 22, 2015, a side road with the classification of the front line of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C is proceeding from Samsung-ro to the front line.

On the other hand, while passing through the intersection by straight along the pedestrian signals of the right-hand crosswalk, there was a conflict between the fronter of the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection and the right-hand door of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which entered the intersection in accordance with the straight line of the vehicle from the right-hand side of the vehicle.

On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,912,360 as the repair cost for Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry and video of Gap's 1, 2, 5, 6, and Eul's 1 to 5 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of both claims;

A. The instant accident occurred as the Plaintiff’s vehicle had already entered the intersection without putting the front side. Since the Defendant’s negligence on the part of the Defendant’s driver related to the accident exceeds 80%, the Plaintiff’s vehicle seeking reimbursement of KRW 3,929,888 (=4,912,360 x 80%) against the Defendant.

B. The instant accident occurred entirely by the Plaintiff’s negligence with the Defendant’s driver, who had entered the intersection by unreasonable entry of the Plaintiff’s vehicle around the time when the Plaintiff’s pedestrian signal ends, and caused the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement is without merit.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., CCTV images installed in an accident site: (i) the Plaintiff’s vehicle signal was redly transmitted to the Defendant’s moving direction prior to entering the intersection; and (ii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle cross-section.