1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 19, 2017, around 20:11, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was under the direct control of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to move into the exit in the Busan Fri-gu Busan Fri-gu Busan Fridong parking lot, and the part of the front door and front door of the Defendant’s vehicle, which entered the intersection from the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked by the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,968,700 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers), the purpose of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The following circumstances are revealed in light of the recognition of the liability for damages and the purport of the entire argument in the evidence revealed prior to the occurrence of the accident, i.e., the accident of this case: (a) the Defendant’s vehicle enters the said intersection by failing to take measures, such as moving the vehicle in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the said intersection by failing to perform the duty of moving the vehicle in front of the Plaintiff vehicle; and (c) the vehicle was found late to the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and (d) the accident of this case’s vehicle was likely to flow the vehicle in the golf course parking lot; and (e) the Plaintiff’s vehicle is obligated to take the front direction as a driver because the passage is narrow; and (e) the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the said intersection at a relatively rapid speed without taking measures such as looking at the left and right of the vehicle at the time of the accident. In light of the foregoing, the accident of this case’s negligence and the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in violation of the duty of moving.