1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile DOF (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 13:00 minutes on October 30, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle passing the said crosswalk by using the left-hand turn signal while driving the crosswalk without permission at around 13:0 minutes.

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

On November 9, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,324,210 (excluding self-charges 200,000) for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident asserted that the Defendant’s vehicle’s fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle in the instant accident is 100%, since it occurred due to shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the crosswalk in contravention of the signal and left left pursuant to the new code. The Defendant’s fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the instant accident is 10%. As the instant accident overlaps with the Defendant’s vehicle’s fault, the Plaintiff’s fault ratio in the instant accident is at least 10%.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned recognized facts of the fault ratio and the purport of the entire arguments, namely, the Defendant’s vehicle, as the off-to-land vehicle, was driving the above crosswalk although it is not possible to drive the crosswalk for pedestrians; the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of driving the above crosswalk is a red signal; the Defendant’s vehicle was a signal signal at the time of driving the above crosswalk; the vehicle was in violation of the signal by using the crosswalk; the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the left left turn in accordance with the signals; the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the left turn at the time of the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and