1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claim extended in the trial are all dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal are due to the extension of claims; and

1. Basic facts

A. Around 14:50 on January 1, 2012, E (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and with the Plaintiff’s wife B’s vehicle volume (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) at the opposite level while permanently staying a two-lane road located in the front and rear two-lanes in the front and rear in the front of the documents at the time of the stay of the two-lane road.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff, who was on board the Chief of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, sustained injuries, such as the escape of the climatic and the climatic signboard.

C. B was indicted for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents”) on the charge that the instant accident was inflicted upon E, etc. while driving the Defendant’s vehicle upon the center line, and was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of a fine of KRW 2 million in the same court on June 26, 2012. The said judgment became final and conclusive on November 7, 2012.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, 13 (including branch numbers in case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion occurred at the center of the intersection where the Defendant’s vehicle invadeds the central line or where there is no central line, and even if the Plaintiff’s household vehicle was in contact with the central line, E, while proceeding with the road at the point of the accident where the Defendant’s vehicle was honded, found in advance that the left qui is going to the central line by the court below’s decision, and thus, E, while proceeding with the road at the point of the accident where the Defendant’s vehicle was in contact with the central line, it is necessary to set the speed to the center as much as possible at a speed to prevent the accident. However, the instant accident occurred while proceeding to the center line without violating the above duty of care.