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. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

The insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle B, and the Defendant is the Defendant’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

(2) Around 11:00 on December 26, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle used a four-lane road (hereinafter “instant road”) in front of the 89-friendly 3rd apartment (hereinafter “instant road”) to cross-sectioned as one-lane in accordance with the straight line.

While entering the road of this case bypassing the Defendant vehicle on the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle in the above intersection (hereinafter “the right side of this case”), there was an accident that the front part of the Defendant vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle are faced with the Defendant vehicle’s left side (hereinafter “the accident of this case”).

3) On January 9, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 3,945,950 with the repair cost, etc. of Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, A’s evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 7, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments No. 9

B. The above facts of recognition, the evidence as seen earlier, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the following circumstances revealed: ① the instant accident occurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Defendant’s vehicle that is straightened in the same intersection by the width; ② the Defendant’s vehicle was bypassing at the two-lane right side of the instant road; ② the instant accident occurred on the one-lane road; ③ the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the instant road; ③ the Defendant’s vehicle was made bypass after entering the instant road; ④ the Defendant’s vehicle was with due care not to obstruct the traffic of the vehicle under his/her direct control; ⑤ the Defendant’s driver, who was under his/her direct control, has the duty of care to pay attention to the degree of damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle.