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. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is the mutual aid association which entered into an automobile mutual aid contract for the Defendant’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On September 19, 2017, around 17:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped to move to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle which was parked in order to turn to a right side of the front of C in order to turn to the right side of the front of C, and the vehicle was driven to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle while moving to the right side of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,756,500 as insurance money for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, Eul evidence No. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) was suspended for a considerable period so that the Defendant’s vehicle could be mistaken for stopping on the left side of the road, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s defect in the Plaintiff’s vehicle seeking to make a right-hand prior to a right-hand is not confirmed, and the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s total fault. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,756,50 and the damages for delay thereof. Therefore, the Defendant’s vehicle is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,756,50 and the damages for delay. 2) In light of the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle requires a lot of right-hand space in the event of a right-hand back by a cargo vehicle, and that the Defendant’s vehicle, prior to the Plaintiff’s entering the place of the accident, is proceeding slowly in accordance with the direction-setting, etc., but it was unreasonable for the Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter the place of the accident to pass through the right-hand space of the Defendant vehicle.

B. The above facts of recognition and the evidence mentioned above are examined.