1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff regarding the B-owned vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a business bus mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff C bus (hereinafter “Defendant bus”).

B. On June 3, 2014, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on June 17:25, 2014, and proceeding three lanes in front of the entrance road of the scenario apartment at the entrance of Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, with the area of a four-lane road from the south bank of the Olympic Winter-do to the area of a grasical outflow back, and shocked the front left-hand part of the Plaintiff’s bus, driving the four-lane road to the area of an Asan Hospital located on the right-hand side of the said road, to the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On June 13, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 580,000 insurance money to A as repair cost for the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred concurrently due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who obstructed the passage of other vehicles while changing the lane and the negligence of the Defendant’s bus driver who violated the duty of front-time display, such as failure to discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the Plaintiff vehicle, etc., and thus, the Defendant, a mutual aid business entity of Defendant bus, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff insurance money corresponding to the negligence of the Defendant bus driver in

B. The following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings on the images of the evidence No. 1, the fact of recognition as above, and the video of the evidence No. 1, that is, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeding three-lanes of the four-lane road, and immediately makes a right-hand turn to the right-hand side, and the Plaintiff’s driver is very close to the Defendant bus.