1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs of supplementary participation.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with Apoter II livestock (hereinafter “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”), and the Defendant is the owner of B 120 bus (hereinafter “Defendant-motor vehicle”).

B. On February 15, 2017, at around 08:45, the Defendant’s vehicle, along the crosswalk in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, driven the two-lanes (four-lanes) of the west Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju Jeju District, along the crosswalk in which the signal lights displayed by tri-luminous lights (hereinafter “instant crosswalk, etc.”) are installed (hereinafter “instant crosswalk”). On the other hand, the Defendant’s vehicle failed to avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering a one-lane by changing the car line from the two-lanes of the above road, and led the Defendant’s right part and the left-hand upper part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 3,119,400 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by February 27, 2017.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In a case where the signals such as three-dimensional signal installed on the ground of the plaintiff's alleged crosswalk change to yellow light, the vehicle intending to pass through the above area must stop and stop driving, and even though the signal of this case was changed to yellow light, the vehicle intending to pass through the crosswalk of this case is unreasonable, even though the signal of this case was changed to yellow light, the accident of this case occurred.

In addition, the location of the accident in this case should be low speed as a starting section of the children protection zone, and the defendant vehicle also violated the restricted speed, and the accident in this case also caused the accident in this case.

Therefore, the accident of this case can be deemed as an accident caused by competition between the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle and the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle. Thus, the driver of the defendant vehicle is the joint tortfeasor.