A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 23, 2017, around 04:07, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was facing the right side from the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the right side while going straight along the intersection front of the south of the F association branch in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu and the school-ro two roads.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On October 10, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,048,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred because the Defendant’s vehicle did not yield to the Plaintiff’s vehicle that entered the said intersection from the right side to the said intersection even though the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the said intersection where no signal, etc. was installed at night, or when the Defendant’s vehicle entered the said intersection at the same time with the Defendant’s vehicle, the negligence of the Defendant’s driver

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred on the wind to enter the said intersection at an rapid speed from the center of the road without reducing or stopping the speed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and at least 80% of the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, and ① the above intersection appears to have entered the driving and the Defendant vehicle almost at the same time, ② in the above intersection where the width of the road without signal, etc. and the width of the driving and the Defendant vehicle is similar, the Plaintiff vehicle, which is the entry vehicle to the right side, was the first priority pursuant to Article 26(3) of the Road Traffic Act. However, the Defendant vehicle discovered the Plaintiff vehicle and stopped immediately.