1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B-owned taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned taxi”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D-owned vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicle”).

B. At around 15:50 on April 13, 2014, A driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the port north-west Fire Station located in lieu of the port north-west of the port, and stopped immediately before the intersection of the police culture center prior to the intersection of the police culture center, and left the said intersection to direct a third party at the tax office, and opened at the above intersection, and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which opened directly from the center of the central elementary school (on the left side when seen from the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle), was shocked into the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

At the time of the accident in this case, yellow lights were operated on the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle, and red lights were operated on the front side of the Defendant vehicle.

The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for deliberation on the instant accident with the committee for deliberation on indemnity, and the committee for deliberation on indemnity amounting to 70% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and Defendant’s vehicle: 30%; and determined that C shall pay KRW 2,761,920 equivalent to the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle out of KRW 3,94,700 of the insurance money that C received from the Defendant.

E. According to the above decision, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,761,920 to the Defendant on March 25, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s vehicle in receipt of the Plaintiff’s alleged on-and-off warning signal should have temporarily been placed in front of the intersection, and even if it could have been aware that the Plaintiff’s vehicle on board would promptly proceed with the passenger, the driver of the Defendant vehicle would not temporarily stop.