1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established with a person holding a private taxi transportation business license in Seoul Special Metropolitan City as its members, and is conducting business activities to compensate for losses caused by an accident of the member of the regular taxi transportation business.

The plaintiff's assistant intervenor is the owner of the B K5 individual taxi (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff's vehicle") and is the member of the plaintiff's ordinary inquiry team.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the C-Eurd vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant vehicle").

On April 30, 2016, around 10:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven along the two-lanes of the three-lane road in front of the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Nowon-dong Public Security Center in front of the Dongdaemun-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, in the vicinity of the intersection while driving along the shooting distance range from the area of the metropolitan railway corporation to the shooting range of the shooting range, and the vehicle stops at the first lane, which is the left left turn line, and the accident occurred.

On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,502,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

【In full view of the evidence, images, and images as seen earlier prior to the occurrence of the liability for damages to determine the purport of the entire pleadings, and all statements or images as set forth in A through 5 and B (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the damaged parts of the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle, the Defendant vehicle stops at the vehicle as if the vehicle is waiting for left-hand turn at the vehicle line at the right-hand left-hand turn, without properly verifying whether the vehicle has a vehicle on the vehicle line to be changed in the course of changing the course into a two-lane, it can be recognized that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant vehicle’s negligence.

However, in full view of the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle has neglected his duty of care at the time of the accident, or failed to immediately act due to excessive speed, etc., thereby contributing to the occurrence of the damage caused by the accident in this case or to the expansion of damage at least.