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 comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 5, 2017, at around 18:20, the Plaintiff’s vehicle left the left at the two-lane, which is the right-hand turn, along the traffic signal, at the two-lanes where the Defendant’s vehicle used to turn to the left at the first lane, which is the U-turn road, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflicts with the Plaintiff’s vehicle and damages the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On September 13, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 763,600 (= KRW 292,600) in total as repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (= KRW 471,000).

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The instant accident occurred due to negligence caused by the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle’s intrusion on the safety zone in violation of traffic regulations, and it is reasonable for the Plaintiff’s driver to believe that the Defendant’s vehicle would normally be U-turn. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the entire repair cost paid by the Plaintiff, who acquired the right to claim damages by subrogation of the insurer, as the indemnity

B. Since the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was negligent in driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in a way that partly intrudes the safety zone by deviating from the left-hand turn line in the intersection, the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s driver should be taken into account in the occurrence of the instant accident.

3. Determination

(a) Drivers of motor vehicles and riders of horses that walk roads shall observe signals and directions conveyed by traffic safety facilities;

(Article 5 (1) (b) of the Road Traffic Act.

In light of the above legal principles, the accident of this case can only be an intern, according to the facts acknowledged in the above basic facts, and each of the above evidence.