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. Basic facts

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

B. On May 2, 2017, around 15:10 on May 2, 2017, an accident occurred between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle at the three-lane intersections in front of the Central Road in the Central Road, which occurred.

C. On June 23, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,570,00 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the Craradar Anadem Ltd. (An orchard branch).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. At the time the Plaintiff’s accident occurred, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding along the two-lanes of the three-lane roads immediately before entering the said intersection.

The defendant's vehicle was entering the two lanes among the two-lanes, and the defendant's vehicle is proceeding along the three-lane roads immediately preceding the entry into the above two-lanes.

In order to avoid a vehicle which has entered the three-lanes among the above intersections, but stopped, it was urgent to change the two-lanes to the two-lanes, and it is reasonable to deem that the above accident was caused by the negligence of the defendant vehicle.

B. At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident by the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding along the two-lanes of roads immediately preceding the entry into the said intersection.

While entering the two-lanes, the two-lanes were changed into the two-lanes, and the defendant vehicle is proceeding in accordance with three-lanes of the three-lanes of the two-lanes immediately preceding the entry into the above two-lanes.

While entering the three-lanes among the above intersections, but the change of the two-lanes has been completed, it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle in the above accident is at least 70%.

3. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap 1, 2, 3, 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 5, and the entire arguments: