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. At the time of the occurrence of a basic fact-finding accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the location of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle member CD on September 1, 2017 at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident that conflicts between the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving at two lanes, respectively, while driving at each of the two lanes at the location of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Sambrosc intersection (hereinafter “instant intersection”). The details of the instant accident on August 29, 2018 are as follows: (a) the amount of the insurance money paid KRW 928,00,000, the self-paid vehicle’s share of KRW 232,00,000, when the final payment of the insurance money was made.

[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's ground for claim

A. The instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver, who did not drive along the instant intersection. Considering all the circumstances at the time of the instant accident, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 10:90.

B. Therefore, the Defendant, who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is obligated to pay 835,200 won as the indemnity amount (=928,000 won x 90% as the Defendant’s fault ratio) and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence revealed earlier, the defendant's vehicle driving along a two-lane and attempted to change the two-lane to a one-lane in the intersection of this case, and the accident of this case, which conflicts with the plaintiff's vehicle, making a left turn at the intersection of this case, is deemed to have occurred, but the above fact of recognition alone does not lead to the driver's negligence of the defendant's driver who tried to change the two-lane in the intersection of this case, and tried to change the two-lane.