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 a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff as the insured with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is the owner and the driver of D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On September 14, 2014, around 08:25, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused an accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”) that shocks the back side part of the Defendant’s vehicle, who was directly located on the front side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, to the front side of the front side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while making a left-hand turn from the spon signal near the sponing port located in the Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Island to the sponing port to the sponing port.

C. On October 20, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,830,00 in total, including KRW 946,00 in E, KRW 33,00 in F, and KRW 1,851,00 in G, as repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

On the other hand, the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident is KRW 1,169,276.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole video and oral argument as evidence 2

2. Determination:

A. (i) Determination on the cause of the instant accident: (a) the background leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, i.e., the vehicle or horse at the time of on-and-off warning of yellow lights, which can be seen by the evidence revealed earlier by the driver’s fault ratio, can proceed with with with the indication of other traffic or safety signs (Article 6(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act); (b) the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, even though the signal at the intersection, which is the location of the instant accident, was yellow on-and-off, was in a yellow-distance state, and the driver at the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at fault without examining the Defendant’s vehicle, and the driver’s negligence seems to have caused the instant accident, and (c) the Defendant’s vehicle is proceeding without reducing the