1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is each insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 17:01 on June 5, 201, the Plaintiff’s vehicle moved in the two-lanes of the two-lanes in the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle located in Port C at Port at Port C at Port on June 5, 2017. The two-lanes of the two-lanes conflict with the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle left at the left-hand turn in the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000 as insurance money to the non-life-insurance association of an incorporated association on July 25, 2017. On July 27, 2017, the Plaintiff returned KRW 1,072,000, and paid KRW 23,178,000 (=24,200,000 - KRW 50,000 - KRW 1,072,000) as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) According to the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection; (b) the Defendant’s vehicle entered a non-protective left-hand turn at the two-lane, rather than the non-protective left-hand turn; and (c) the Defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection without temporarily stopping the vehicle before making a non-protective left-hand turn, the instant accident occurred due to the former fault of the Defendant vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount to the Plaintiff KRW 23,178,00 and the damages for delay thereof. (b) The instant accident occurred due to the negligence that caused the Defendant’s vehicle to make a non-protective left-hand turn on the road at a limited speed of 40 km/h; and (c) the Plaintiff’s front vehicle driven at a high speed speed and at a safe driving without being bound and neglected at a speed.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the negligence of Defendant vehicle is 60%.

(b)each of the above evidences and judgments;