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. On April 23, 2019, at the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle CD, at the time of the accident, was shocked with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was left left left at the two-lanes of the three-lanes prior to the entry of the aforesaid shooting distance, and was paid at the same direction on July 12, 2019 (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the background of the instant accident are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle, at the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, left the left at the two-lanes of the two-lanes prior to the entry of the aforesaid shooting distance; and (b) the Defendant’s vehicle, at the same time, paid the insurance money (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view the instant accident as a concurrent occurrence of the negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle.

① The instant accident appears to have occurred when the Defendant’s vehicle was at a one-lane road, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was going to turn to the left at a two-lane, was overtaking the Defendant’s vehicle, without properly examining the movement of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant vehicle was in a direct presence, but the driver of the defendant vehicle is a left-hand lane, and the two-lanes where the plaintiff vehicle is in a right-hand turn or right-hand turn is a two-lane, and there is no other evidence to deem that the driver of the defendant vehicle was in a direct presence at the right-hand turn.

The plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the main fault of the instant accident is on the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(2) However, since the driver of the defendant vehicle was the left-hand turn on the side of the vehicle, there is a negligence on the left-hand turn without neglecting the duty of care to drive the vehicle safely by checking well the movement of the plaintiff vehicle.