1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into an automobile insurance contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 25, 2019, around 09:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in Seongdong-gu Seoul, in violation of the signal from the front distance to the left left-hand turn, conflicts with H (hereinafter “victimed vehicle”) that was driven under the straight line from the Mad Gmaart left-hand surface of Seoul Forest Street to the right-hand edge of the forest distance, and due to the shock, there was an accident of the secondary collision with the Defendant’s vehicle in the atmosphere where the damaged vehicle exceeded the stop line one lane in front of the opposite part.

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

On February 27, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,428,820 as damages, and KRW 5,428,820 as damages, in total, KRW 3,00,00 as the repair cost for damaged vehicles. The repair cost related to the second collision was equivalent to KRW 774,00.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers) or video

2. The party's assertion that the accident in this case occurred by competition between the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who did not make a left turn in violation of the signal and the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who was stopped in excess of the excessive stop line, and thus, the plaintiff asserts to the purport that the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, seek reimbursement for the amount of 1,281,120 won (=3,202,820 won (=2,428,820 won) x 40%) equivalent to 40% of the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, and damages for delay.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle who violated the signal and thus cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

3. Determination

A. Paragraph 5 of Article 25 of the Road Traffic Act is all the vehicles or vehicles.