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. Basic facts

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, at around 16:25 on May 26, 2017, the insured vehicle CD of the Plaintiff insured vehicle, and around 16:25 on May 2017, 2017, the Defendant vehicle in the situation of collision with the intersection without any signal signal in the front and rearan-gun, the front and rearan-gun, the two-lane at the road corner of the above intersection. The Plaintiff vehicle driven at the same direction as the Defendant vehicle and tried to make a right-hand bypassing the use of the first vehicle. At that time, the Defendant vehicle started driving the vehicle at the same direction as that of the Defendant vehicle, and around that time, the right-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle conflicts with the front and rear part of the Defendant vehicle. The amount of insurance proceeds paid (the

B. The judgment of the first instance court judged the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 30:70, and calculated the Plaintiff’s amount of reimbursement as 645,463 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 through 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a state in which the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in the two-lanes of the two-lane road, and thus, the instant accident occurred on the wind that the Defendant’s vehicle, which started after stopping, started without fulfilling his/her duty of care, which is due to the previous negligence of the Defendant’s driver. (ii) The Defendant’s vehicle, as the Defendant’s vehicle, intended to make a right-hand by using the first lane, was the intention of the Defendant’s vehicle to use the second lane, and thus, the Defendant’s vehicle, which was in the second lane, had been driven with due care, taking into account the possibility that the Defendant’s vehicle, which was in the second lane, was in the first instance judgment that considers the Plaintiff’s fault as 30%, is reasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the instant accident was committed before the Plaintiff’s driver’s fault Gap 5, who did not reduce the sufficient speed in the situation of bypassing at the first lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle passes ahead of the Defendant’s vehicle.