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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to A Poter Cargo Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to B Poter Motor Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. C, around 06:50 on December 8, 201, when driving a vehicle on the Defendant side and driving a vehicle on the part of the Defendant side at the center located above the 2nd line of the E-factory neighboring E-factory D at the time of opticalyang to the right side of the center, C had shocked the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving on the front side of the Defendant side at the front side (hereinafter “instant accident”), and thereby, F suffered injury.

C. The Defendant paid F a total of KRW 1,818,000 in the name of medical treatment and agreed money.

As a result of the deliberation of the liability ratio for the instant accident upon the Defendant’s claim, the committee for deliberation on the dispute over the reimbursement of automobile insurance brought an action in this case to the effect that the Plaintiff’s liability ratio was 50% on March 18, 2013, and in accordance with the purport of the said determination, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this case to the effect that the Defendant raised a dispute on April 3, 2013 while paying KRW 909,00 (=1,818,000 x 0.5) provisionally.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion that the driver of the vehicle on the side of the plaintiff discovered and reduced the speed of the object located far from the first lane while the driver of the vehicle on the side of the plaintiff, and the driver of the vehicle on the side of the defendant neglected the driver's duty of front-way and duty to ensure safety distance, causing the accident of this case. The accident of this case occurred by the unilateral negligence on the part of the defendant, and since there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant must return the above KRW 909,000, which

On the other hand, the defendant is driving the driver of the vehicle on the plaintiff side in two lanes.

This case is the wind that finds objects located far from the two-lanes and changes rapidly to the one-lanes.