1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B-Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

The defendant is the driver of the vehicle C (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant vehicle").

B. On October 20, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the front direction road of E (hereinafter “instant road”) located in D at the right side of the road at the right side of the road at the right side on October 20, 2016, in order to overtake the Defendant’s vehicle driven in the front direction beyond the yellow median line, and the accident occurred that the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle would return to the front direction again from the opposite direction to the opposite direction.

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

On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 9,017,022 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Items A 1 through 4, Eul 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Defendant’s vehicle, which is the Plaintiff’s assertion, stops in the situation where the half of the above part of the road was occupied by the Defendant’s vehicle. At the time when the Plaintiff’s vehicle passes by the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, the instant accident occurred by shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the center of the Plaintiff’s own vehicle and shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the equivalent amount of the above insurance money and the delay damages.

B. The above-mentioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments on the evidence as seen earlier, namely, ① the road of this case was one-lane in which yellow median line is installed, and the vehicle traffic was considerably frequent at both directions at the time of the accident of this case. ② The Plaintiff’s driver at the time of the accident of this case shows that the road of this case was considerably narrow toward the right side, so it is difficult to confirm the opposite lane and the opposite vehicle.