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

B. On January 2, 2016, at around 13:35, the Plaintiff’s side driven one lane on the road of the first amamo-ro 40, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do, and passed it at the intersection of the same amo-ro 22, while the Defendant’s side, who entered the above intersection from the amo-ro 22 on the left side of the road to the above intersection, caused an accident where the Defendant’s side, who entered the above intersection, shocks the left side of the Plaintiff’s side.

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

On January 18, 2016, according to the automobile insurance contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 414,900 in total as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, evidence 7-1 through 4, Eul evidence 2, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, although the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection first, and the Defendant’s vehicle did not take the front side and took part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, despite having entered the intersection.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay the plaintiff the repair cost of the vehicle on the side of the plaintiff with the full amount of the repair cost.

B. At the time of the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s vehicle cannot be deemed to have entered the intersection prior to the Defendant’s vehicle. Since the width of the road driven by the Defendant’s side is larger than that of the road driven by the Plaintiff’s side, the Plaintiff’s vehicle should have driven slowly and had the right of way for the Defendant’s vehicle.

In addition, the intersection of the above accident did not regulate traffic and it was a place where it is impossible to confirm the left and the right.