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 concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 14:25 on November 23, 2018, the driver of the Defendant vehicle shocked the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle who was stopped to make a right-hand turn on the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle while making a right-hand line. The driver of the Defendant vehicle shocked the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle who was stopped to make a right-hand turn on the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,080,80 (excluding self-paid KRW 500,000) for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 through 13 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was standing on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle for the right-hand.

However, the defendant's vehicle caused the plaintiff's vehicle to shock the plaintiff's vehicle in a unreasonable way, in violation of the method of the right-to-way and the duty of the right-to-way moving.

Since the accident of this case entirely occurred by the negligence of the defendant vehicle, the defendant should pay the plaintiff the above repair cost of KRW 3,080,800 and delay damages with the indemnity.

B. According to the above facts of recognition and the above evidence, the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred by the negligence of driving the vehicle without verifying the plaintiff's vehicle that was bypassing from a long distance to the right side in the process of departing again after stopping at the front of the vehicle at the front of the road, and the negligence of entering the vehicle of the plaintiff who was trying to make a right-hand transit by driving the vehicle after going through the defendant vehicle is unreasonable as the space between the defendant vehicle and the road curb.

Furthermore, the defendant vehicle driver in the right of way is now in the same position as the plaintiff vehicle in the right of way.