1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into an automobile mutual aid agreement with respect to B cab (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”).

B. On July 9, 2014: (a) around 04:50, the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Sindong-dong Intersection (hereinafter “instant Intersection”) followed the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was moved to the right side of the Sindong-dong apartment in the direction of the Sindong-dong, Songpa-gu (hereinafter “instant Intersection”) and the Defendant’s vehicle, which was located in the same direction as the lower part, was facing the lower part

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

By August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,177,000 in total with the medical expenses and the amount agreed upon by Defendant taxi passengers.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the driver of the vehicle who violated the duty to safely enter the intersection while leading to the movement of another vehicle. However, considering the situation where the plaintiff's vehicle entered the intersection, it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio of the driver of the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle in this case is 40:60,00 won, which corresponds to the fault ratio of the driver of the vehicle in this case (=1,77,00 won x 0.6) out of the insurance amount paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff with the indemnity amount of KRW 706

As to this, the defendant did not temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk while the pedestrian signal of the plaintiff's front road was changed to a green, and went through the crosswalk as it was, and collisioned with the defendant's taxi that is normally proceeding according to the intersection signal. In the occurrence of the accident in this case, the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle is more severe, and therefore, the plaintiff's plaintiff is on a different premise.