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 entered into an automobile insurance contract with Nonparty A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s insured vehicle”) and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Defendant’s insured vehicle”).

B. On March 27, 2013, around 14:52, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle was proceeding in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Eunpyeong-gu Office Distance (hereinafter “instant intersection”) in line with the two-lanes of the two-lanes in the direction of Seobu Hospital, using the two-lanes in the direction of Seobu Hospital. However, the Defendant’s insured vehicle transferred to the right direction of the insured vehicle on the road along the right direction of the vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle transferred to the right direction of the vehicle to the right direction of the Defendant’s insured vehicle and received the right direction of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. In the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle was destroyed to the extent that the repair cost of KRW 8,00,000 was required, and on July 26, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,000,000 of the insurance money due to the vehicle damage to the insured.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties concerned is that the pedestrian signal in the crosswalk installed in the direction of the proceeding is green while entering the intersection of this case where traffic is controlled by the new signals. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties concerned is shocking the aspect of the plaintiff's insured vehicle that had entered the intersection without permission without permission and without permission to reduce the speed of the pedestrian, and that the accident of this case was caused by the total negligence of the defendant insured vehicle.

Therefore, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s insured vehicle, shall pay KRW 8,00,000 to the Plaintiff who subrogatedly acquired the Plaintiff’s insurance claim against the Defendant A.