1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, on the statements and images set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 4, and Gap evidence 7:

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B passenger car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 11, 2015, at around 10:26, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered two-lanes of the two-lanes at a point where the inner circulation of Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City and the middle-line roads are friendly. On November 11, 2015, there was an accident in which the two-lanes of the Defendant’s vehicle driving the two-lanes of the said road and the rear wheels of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle conflict with the front right edge of the Defendant’s vehicle driving in the same direction.

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

On November 24, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 816,100 under the pretext of repair expenses for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case occurred due to the failure of the defendant vehicle to discover the plaintiff vehicle due to negligence in front of the defendant vehicle, because the accident of this case was caused by the accident of this case, since the accident of this case was caused by negligence in front of the defendant vehicle, since the vehicle of this case had already entered the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lane road, and the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the vehicle.

In regard to this, the Defendant suffered from the fault that the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused to the front section of the Defendant’s vehicle while the Defendant was driving a two-lane normally, and the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident is 40%.