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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with B cargo vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 22, 2015, around 13:39, the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to turn to the left to the left in order to turn to the new channel of Mapo-gu and to turn to the new channel of the YI-type Intersection. The accident occurred where the Defendant’s vehicle in the Mapo-gu attempted to turn to the left to the front of Seoul New Elementary School (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 595,960 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The occurrence and scope of the right to claim damages;

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case is an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant's vehicle, because the defendant's vehicle, who was stopping on the left side of the safety zone of the plaintiff's vehicle, did not properly see the left side of the vehicle and stopped the plaintiff's vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the defendant vehicle is not the left-hand side of the way way like the plaintiff vehicle, but also the left-hand turn on the left-hand side of the plaintiff vehicle's way in the Yi-type intersection, and that the plaintiff vehicle's right-hand turn is in conflict with the defendant vehicle by attempting to turn-hand turn to the intersection without looking at the front side and left-hand side. Thus, the plaintiff vehicle's negligence is more than 50%.

B. The above evidence alone, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle stops on the left-hand side of the running lane of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, it is recognized earlier.