1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On May 26, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection in front of the Artificial Exposure of Gangseo-si, Gangseo-si on May 26, 2019, and thereafter shocked the right side part of the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the said intersection with the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On June 24, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,145,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant vehicle entered the intersection in violation of the method of entering the signal and the intersection, which caused the instant accident, and that the negligence of the defendant vehicle is about 50%.

(2) Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case was caused exclusively by the plaintiff's negligence, since the plaintiff's vehicle entered the intersection even though the accident of this case was a red signal.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection where the instant accident occurred even if the ongoing signal has been changed in red color; (ii) the unreasonable entry of the Plaintiff vehicle appears to have the direct cause of the instant accident; (iii) although the Defendant’s vehicle passed through the red signal crossing, it was a green signal at the time of entering the intersection where the instant accident occurred; and (iii) the Defendant’s vehicle could have been anticipated to have a vehicle entering the intersection in violation of the signal from the right side to the right side.