1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, at around 11:30 on September 26, 2018, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the insured vehicle of the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) changed the way from four lanes to one-lane to one-lane crossing in front of the 114 police station, the Plaintiff vehicle in the situation of collision, from the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the road, sent the signal from one-lane to one-lane signal. While the Defendant vehicle stopped in front of the crossing signal in front of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the direction of the traffic, the emergency vehicle was changed from four-lane to one-lane and the left-hand part of the vehicle of the Plaintiff vehicle. The collision between the front right-hand part of the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle’s self-paid charges of KRW 418,000,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, and that the Plaintiff claimed the total amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff and damages for delay from the day following the payment date of insurance money, and the Defendant claimed that the instant accident occurred due to the primary negligence of the Plaintiff’

According to the above evidence, the defendant vehicle stops in front of the crosswalk, and upon the completion of the crosswalk signal, it is argued that the vehicle used to turn on emergency lights, etc., and changed the vehicle from four lanes to one lane, and the plaintiff is about to turn on the vehicle. However, if the defendant vehicle wants to turn on a U-turn in light of the front waiting condition and direction of the crosswalk, if the defendant vehicle tried to turn on a U-turn, the center line is not left when the signal of the crosswalk turn on.