1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

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

B. On April 10, 2017, around 18:42, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the first lane among the two-lane roads in Western-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-si, Seoan-gu, Seoan-si, the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which attempted to do U-do, was shocked by the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On August 14, 2017, the Defendant filed a request with the Plaintiff for deliberation by the committee for deliberation on indemnity amounting to KRW 6,500,000 of the insurance money paid in relation to the instant accident, and the committee for deliberation on indemnity amount determined the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver on August 14, 2017.

On May 10, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 43,900,00 as insurance money.

E. On October 26, 2017, the Defendant decided to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 26,340,000, which is 60% of the above insurance proceeds, and paid the said money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, entry of Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the occurrence of liability for damages, the above recognition ratio, and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the following facts are acknowledged: (i) Defendant vehicle attempted to make a sudden internship on the two-lanes where the U-turn is prohibited; and (ii) Plaintiff vehicle was under the speed of 50.26 km to 64.6 km (the result of the Daejeon Science Investigation Research Institute’s Appraisal) beyond the speed of 40 km.

According to this, the accident of this case conflicts between the negligence and the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who tried the sudden internship at the two-lanes where the U.S. is prohibited.