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 the D vehicle owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with the F vehicle belonging to the E company (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

나. 2018. 3. 12. 13:34경 서울 관악구 봉천동 낙성대 까치고개 전 노상에서, 원고차량이 편도 4차로 도로의 3차로로 진행하던 중, 횡단보도에 설치된 신호등이 황색 정지신호로 바뀌었음에도 속도를 줄이거나 정지하지 않고 그대로 횡단보도를 지나간 후 3차로에서 4차로로 차선을 변경하였는데, 마침 원고차량이 ㅏ 자형 도로의 소로에서 대로로 크게 우회전하다가 대로의 4차로를 일부 침범하여 진입하여 원고차량의 전면 좌측 부분과 피고차량의 전면 우측 부분이 충격하는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라고 한다)가 발생하였다

(The location of the accident of this case is as follows).

On March 22, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 2,67,650,00 in total, KRW 4,658,60 in the amount of damages and treatment costs of G, a passenger of the Defendant vehicle, from April 13, 2018 to June 21, 2018, and KRW 8,526,250 in the amount of damages and treatment costs of the Plaintiff vehicle’s driver from April 11, 2018 to June 1, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 1, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The driver of the defendant vehicle is obliged to pay 8,526,250 won of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and damages for delay, since the accident of this case occurred due to the alteration of the vehicle line with the crosswalk in violation of the signal. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the driver's negligence of the defendant vehicle as 10%. Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is obliged to pay the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff. 2