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 an insurer who has concluded a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a motor vehicle insurance contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 30, 2017, at least 18:40, the Defendant’s vehicle had been driving in one lane of the two-lane road in front of the F store located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, from the front of the street to the seat of a G hospital in front of the front of the street, and the Plaintiff’s previous vehicle had changed from the first lane to the second lane, and then re-entered into the first lane in the process of turning the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the first lane (hereinafter “instant accident”). In the process, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the front wheeler to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On February 26, 2018, the Defendant filed a request with the H Deliberation Committee for deliberation on the ratio of negligence (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”), and the Deliberation Committee rendered a decision to deliberate and coordinate that “The ratio of responsibility between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle shall be 85%: 15%, considering the contact level of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed its course for the internship, the speed and degree of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s turn back, etc.”

Accordingly, on April 30, 2018, the Defendant filed a request for reexamination with the Deliberation Committee, and the Deliberation Committee rendered a decision on re-deliberation with the purport that “The ratio of liability between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle is 100%:0%, considering the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to make an illegal internship at the crosswalk, and that the Defendant’s vehicle driver was difficult to avoid the instant accident in light of the distance of both vehicles at the time of the accident.”

E. As the Defendant’s vehicle was destroyed by the instant accident, the Defendant paid KRW 16,418,800 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle. On May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,418,800 to the Defendant in accordance with the review decision of the foregoing Review Committee.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute;