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

On April 14, 2018, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff insured vehicle CD at the time of the accident, and around April 17:23, 2018, insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) in front of the F Middle School apartment complex located in Daejeon Sung-gu E, Daejeon (hereinafter “the Plaintiff vehicle”) had even a part of the right-hand door of the Defendant insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) that was left left at the front of the front of the accident at the place of the accident at the time of the accident. The fact that there was no dispute over KRW 50,00,00 of the self-paid vehicle of the insured vehicle of the Defendant insured vehicle of self-determination (based on recognition), Gap evidence No. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole oral argument as

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred by competition between the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, and that the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle is 80%, and that the Plaintiff subrogated the victim’s right to claim damages on the basis of subrogation by the insurer with respect to the part corresponding to

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred by unilateral negligence of the plaintiff vehicle.

In full view of all the circumstances such as the evidence mentioned above and the background of the accident, the degree of conflict and shock, etc. revealed in the facts of recognition, namely, the defendant vehicle's access to the intersection in the accident place, that is, the defendant vehicle is deemed to have entered the intersection in the direction of the accident place, but the left-hand turn from the road to the right side as the left-hand turn is not paid at all, and the plaintiff vehicle's failure to yield the course for the vehicle that entered the intersection at a speed higher than the defendant vehicle, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle driver to be 50%: 50%.

However, the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff is paid based on the security for self-vehicle damage, which can be claimed by the insurer, based on comparative negligence, etc. among the total amount of the defendant's liability.