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 concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 14:00 on October 13, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, following the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was maried in the vicinity of the F Hospital located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, was shocked by the lower-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, following the left-hand side of the vehicle.

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

On November 17, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,439,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case was caused by the shock of the plaintiff's vehicle which was driven by the driver of the defendant's vehicle while the defendant's vehicle was driven by the narrow side road, and the fault ratio of the defendant's vehicle is at least 70%, and the defendant is obligated to claim reimbursement of 1,007,300 won (=1,490,000 won x 70%) out of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that there was a gross negligence on the part of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle who was driven by the defendant's vehicle while driving the narrow side road unreasonably.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above recognition and the evidence mentioned above, namely, the road in which the instant accident occurred, are not sufficiently wide enough to walk along the two vehicles at the same time along a side of a narrow one lane; the Defendant’s vehicle stopped or driven at the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which had been placed on the right side of the damage progress direction, and in such a case, the Plaintiff’s driver as a driver of the vehicle, even though he is required to operate the vehicle while ensuring a space by properly examining the Defendant’s vehicle, is not completely passing through the Defendant’s vehicle.