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. At around 17:40 on March 19, 2019, C driven a D vehicle owned by himself (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicle”) and was faced with the part of the E vehicle, which changed from the two lanes to the one way among the five lanes in the two lanes from the other five lanes in the 4-lane dong (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicle”), in order to turn to the left from the other way in the 5-lane dong 4-dong dong B, and the part facing both the left side of the vehicle and the front front of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

On March 27, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,556,230,000, which was the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, subtracting KRW 200,00 of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from KRW 1,756,230.

C. The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for the defendant vehicle.

[Evidence] In the absence of dispute, each statement of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 7 to Gap evidence 11, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 6 (the evidence with provisional number includes numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and video 2. Claims and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred by the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle in an unreasonable manner from the two lanes to the one lane in the signal signal, and thus, the Defendant is liable for damages arising from the instant accident to C as an insurer who concluded an insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. Since the Plaintiff was exempted from liability with the payment of the insurance money, the Plaintiff is acting in subrogation of the Defendant’s damage claim against C pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

B. In light of the following circumstances recognized by each video of the evidence No. 5 and evidence No. 111, the instant accident occurred due to joint fault between C and the Defendant’s driver, and it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio as Plaintiff 15% and Defendant 85%.

1. The driver of the defendant vehicle has stopped in order to wait for the left-hand turn signal at the two-lanes of the accident place.