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. Occurrence of a traffic accident;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of BMW 650GT Oba (hereinafter “Plaintiff Oba”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 6, 2018, Plaintiff Otoba and Defendant vehicles entered the 40-lane sublim intersection (hereinafter “instant intersection”) in the bank of the Bank of Korea as of March 12:10, 2018 (hereinafter “instant accident”) and continued, there was an accident, where the part of Plaintiff Otoba and the Defendant’s vehicle is shocked with the front boom of the Plaintiff, Otoba and the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is proceeding with the Defendant’s vehicle via the Seoul At the instant intersection.

The defendant asserts that the accident of this case was caused by the unilateral negligence of the defendant vehicle, and that the defendant, the insurer, is obliged to pay 4,223,670 won of the repair cost of this case to the plaintiff, because the plaintiff, who was the insurer, was able to pay 4,23,670 won of the repair cost of this case.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral negligence, since the Defendant’s vehicle maintained the car line and proceeded with the instant intersection, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was overtaking the Defendant vehicle after the safety zone was passed by the Plaintiff Oralba, and the Plaintiff’s left-hand side of Oralba, and the instant accident occurred by shocking the part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. The Plaintiff, who is the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, sought the cost of repair from the Plaintiff’s vehicle owner. Therefore, the burden of proving the negligence of the Defendant’s driver.