1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an organization that is obligated to compensate for the damage caused by an automobile accident if a member suffers damage similar to a non-life insurance business or a mutual aid business in accordance with the terms and conditions of the first aid agreement within the association. The supplementary intervenor is the Plaintiff’s member and the owner of the Plaintiff’s private taxi vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) and the Defendant is the insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract for the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. Around 11:50 on December 8, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding to five lanes on the 5-lane road of the luminous Round-ro, Mapo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, on the right side of the vehicle, and the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which entered the said road bypassing it from the right side to the right side, was shocked into the part, such as the Plaintiff’s right fronter, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) c.

On January 10, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,902,00 to the F Co., Ltd. in charge of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On the other hand, on December 12, 2018, the supplementary intervenor paid 200,000 won to the Plaintiff according to the terms and conditions of the mutual aid agreement of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 12 evidence, Eul 1 through 3 evidence (including each number for a case with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The instant accident by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor occurred when the Defendant’s vehicle entered the road along which the instant accident occurred bypassing from the right side to the road, and driving along the road in the direction of the first lane. The Intervenor, who is the Plaintiff’s driver, did not have a duty of care to drive the Defendant’s vehicle by predicting it to the direction of the first lane. Thus, the instant accident by the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor did not have a duty of care to drive the vehicle in the direction of the Defendant

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred is a course of entering the right of way from the rear bank.