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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 5, 2017, around 16:47, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the front front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was left left left at a two-lane from the next two-lanes, among the two-lanes of the two-lanes below, with the front front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.

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

On November 30, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,614,00 (excluding self-paid KRW 500,000) for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts and the evidence revealed above, since both the first and second lanes of the road where the accident in this case occurred are possible to turn to the left, the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle have a duty of care to prevent the accident by carefully examining the progress of the vehicle moving to the left at each side of the vehicle and making a left turn to the left, and thus, the accident in this case occurred due to negligence. The defendant vehicle is a large vehicle which makes a left turn to the left at the inside and outside of the vehicle and takes priority over the plaintiff vehicle which makes a left turn to the left, and the vehicle of this case takes priority over the vehicle of this case which makes a left turn to the outside of the vehicle, but the vehicle of this case is a large vehicle, but the vehicle of this case cannot be seen as breaking the vehicle of this case, in light of the dynamics of the vehicle of the plaintiff vehicle and the vehicle that turn to the left turn to the left, it is reasonable to see the negligence ratio as the plaintiff vehicle's 60% and the defendant vehicle of this case as the vehicle of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to Article 682 of the Commercial Act.