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. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle CD at the time of the instant accident, at the location of 18:36, Dec. 29, 2018, in the situation of the collision of the Plaintiff’s vehicle CD at the time of Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, 345 Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, 345, the Plaintiff’s vehicle left one-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the flood bank, and is proceeding to the above three-distance intersection under the new subparagraph. However, the Defendant’s vehicle was running the above three-lanes of the two-lanes of the flood bank, and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s driver’s seat in front of the instant accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “the front part of the instant accident”). The amount of the insurance money paid for the insurance money paid for KRW 7,520,000 (Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost) and the payment date of the insurance money secured for self vehicle damage.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver as 20:80 in light of the fact that prior to the negligence ratio, and the evidence revealed by the aforementioned evidence.

① The above three-distance intersection, which is the place where the instant accident occurred, refers to a place where the vision of the unprotective coordinates is allowed from the bioside area, which is the direction of the running of the Defendant’s vehicle, to the erode of the left at the intersection where the unprotective left turn is permitted, but the driver of the vehicle who turns to the left at the intersection where the unprotective left turn is allowed, shall turn to the left so as not to obstruct the vehicle coming from the opposite side, and attached Table 6

B. See serial No. 329, since the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident was going to go to the above three-distance intersection from the opposite side, the Defendant’s driver, despite his duty to safely turn to the left so as not to obstruct the passage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the priority, neglecting the front line, leaving the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the intersection from the opposite side to the intersection without properly examining the movement of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.