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

B. Around 08:35 on June 28, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding on the side of the front side of the Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-dong Hyundai Home Network, and there was an accident of collision between the front wheels of the Defendant Orala, which was driven at the right side of the Plaintiff’s direction, and the front wheel of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

C. On August 26, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 200,000 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

【Ground of recognition】 Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the negligence of the defendant vehicle is 100% since the accident of this case occurred, as the defendant Oral Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba Ba came to play an abnormal role in the delivery.

In this regard, the defendant argued that the plaintiff's vehicle was temporarily stopped in the temporary stop line in front of the crosswalk, which is the place of the accident in this case, and that since the accident in this case occurred, the defendant's fault ratio of the defendant's vehicle is below 50%.

B. According to the determination of the Road Traffic Act, drivers of motor vehicles and riders of horses, including motorcycles, should pass along the roadway on the road that is divided into sidewalks and roadways (Article 13(1)), and as recognized earlier, the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant, since the Defendant Oraba, which was driving on a sidewalk that is not the roadway but the roadways due to traffic offense, brought about the Plaintiff’s vehicle normally driving on the roadways.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle was negligent in neglecting the duty of front and left-hand watch without stopping in the front temporary stop line of the crosswalk.