1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On May 3, 2014, at around 09:15, the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) found the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s attempt to make a right-hand transit on the fourth-lane in the same direction that is permitted only while entering the said intersection, along five-lanes where the right-hand and right-hand transmission is allowed, at the intersection in which the right-hand route is allowed, at the same time as that of the Defendant’s vehicle’s front and the right-hand route is rapidly operated to avoid collision.

Passengers aboard the Defendant’s vehicle were diverse and mobile phones were destroyed.

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

From June 12, 2014 to February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25,631,910 in total under the name of the medical expenses and the amount agreed upon by the passengers of the Defendant vehicle, and the cost of mobile phone repair.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident in this case occurred as the defendant's vehicle was at fault of 50% on the part of the defendant vehicle, since the plaintiff's four-lane vehicle was found later and the balk was excessively discovered to change the vehicle from five-lane to four-lanes, and the accident in this case occurred.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred when the Plaintiff’s vehicle overtakes the Defendant vehicle and immediately bypassing the Defendant vehicle, thereby preventing the course of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Defendant is entirely responsible for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the accident in this case enters the intersection on the fourth-lane, which is a straight line, without properly examining the traffic situation of the five-lane, even though the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was behind the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and then makes a rapid round after entering the intersection.