1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Based on the facts, the Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with QM3 (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and D is the Plaintiff’s spouse, who is the Plaintiff’s driver.

D On October 12, 2015, around 19:15, when driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and making a left turn to the front side of the apartment located in the intersection between Daejeon Sung-gu E apartment complex 502 and 504, the Defendant’s bicycle, who was in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of delivery, led to a traffic accident that led to shock of the Defendant’s bicycle, who was in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the 504-dong room and 502-dong room.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The instant accident site is the intersection of a road in an apartment complex, with a width of 3 meters, and is abutting on the delivery where pedestrians or bicycles pass along.

On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,929,000 to D in relation to the damage of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] A's Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and Eul's Evidence Nos. 5 (including the number of pages), the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle asserted to the purport of the whole pleadings should first turn to the left, and even if the plaintiff's motion was entered, the accident of this case occurred at a rapid speed of the defendant's bicycle, the bicycle of the defendant's driving did not light at night, and the bicycle of the defendant's driving did not go to the crosswalk and cross the crosswalk. Thus, the defendant's fault ratio of the defendant who caused the accident of this case is reasonable.

The defendant's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle that was left left rapidly to the intersection of this case without properly verifying the bicycle of the defendant's driver who had already entered the road and without operating direction, etc.

Judgment

The facts acknowledged above, the evidence mentioned above, and the overall purport of the arguments, namely, the following circumstances, i.e., D, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, within the apartment complex.