1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, and those resulting from the intervention in the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer that has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to CMFW vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to DF vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 13, 2017, at around 19:10, B driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and proceeded with two lanes near the 80-lane in the Jinannam-gu, Daegu (hereinafter “instant intersection”) via the two-lanes of the Jinannam-ro (hereinafter “instant intersection”); while driving the Defendant vehicle in the same direction at the same place and place, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) was running in the same direction, there was an accident in which the two-lanes conflict between the front and rear door of the Plaintiff’s right side and the front part of the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the left side.

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

On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 6,860,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the Korea-style Commercial Partnership Co., Ltd.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1 and Eul evidence 3-2, and the fact-finding inquiry and reply to the chief of Daegu Northern Police Station of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the party's assertion (i) The original height B used the Plaintiff's vehicle to drive and drive the Plaintiff's vehicle into the instant intersection along the two-lane road near the instant intersection, while entering the instant intersection, and maintaining one lane within the instant intersection connected the Plaintiff's two-lane along which the Plaintiff's vehicle driven, and passing through the instant intersection. However, the Intervenor was driving the Defendant's vehicle at the rear side of the Plaintiff's vehicle and driving the vehicle along the three-lane road along the said three-lane road.