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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to D business-use taxi (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On June 18, 2018, around 10:19, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the three-lanes of the four-lanes of the road in the Electronic Islands in the Daegu Suwon-gu. The Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the two-lanes of the four-lanes. The Defendant’s vehicle stopped on the two-lanes adjacent to the vehicle.

At the request of passengers, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle entered the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the process of moving the vehicle into the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while moving the vehicle into the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On July 10, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 5,805,00 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s driver of the Defendant’s vehicle who makes a right-hand turn-out in the straight line within the intersection, and thus, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 5,805,00 and the damages for delay.

(2) The instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who violated the signal at the intersection and the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who violated the passing method at the intersection, and the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was excessive.

B. (1) According to the determination of the ratio of negligence, the Plaintiff’s driver was not able to accurately see the front line signal at the police station, and the other party is the other party.