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

B. On December 19, 2014, around 15:50, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle completed the car in the D’s station located in the Taedong-gu Seoul, Taedong-gu, Daejeon, and stopped on the front of the road by driving the car on the front of the road. At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle, who continued parallel with the road in the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, was facing the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the right side in order to enter the road after completing the gas station at the station located in the front of the horse.

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

On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 3,167,100 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 4 (including each number for those with several numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following facts acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence revealed that the accident site of this case is a structure that enters the road at the same site with a gas station equipped with the parking facilities and all the vehicles which completed the parking vehicle and the vehicle that completed the oiling. At the time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle used to enter the road to enter the road. The Defendant’s vehicle was also driving on the access road to the road. The Defendant’s vehicle was also driving on the same site after completing the oiling, and the vehicle’s driving on the road at the same place, and other vehicle conditions in the main Defendant’s vehicle located in the station. The accident of this case was negligent in performing the duty at the front time, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence and progress without finding the Plaintiff’s vehicle. At the time of the accident, the vehicle is trying to enter the road at the right and right and right and right and right and right and right and right and right and right of the vehicle.