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 entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On July 13, 2017, around 13:05, an accident occurred where the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was left left at the two-lanes in front of the government bus terminal, from among the four-lanes at the intersection prior to the Kuo-dong, Kuo-dong, Kuo-dong, the government, was shocking the Defendant’s vehicle at which the left turn was left at the first lane (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On July 14, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 200,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, 4 through 6, Eul 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was located in the first lane at the Defendant’s vehicle, with the normal left-hand turn at the second lane, and the Defendant’s driver is at fault of 30%.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay approximately KRW 60,00 ( KRW 200,000 x 30%) and damages for delay, out of the insurance proceeds paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

B. Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “The driver of any motor vehicle shall not change course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which the driver intends to change course of the motor vehicle.”

In light of the situation of the accident of this case and the location of each vehicle and the degree of collision, which can be known by the evidence mentioned above, the accident of this case seems to conflict with the defendant vehicle when the plaintiff vehicle, who was left left at the two-lane at the intersection, left left turn to the left left at the first way where the defendant vehicle left left at the intersection, is seen to have left the left, and the vehicle of this case.