2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. On June 25, 2018, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs along the intersection in the direction of the F main point from the distance ahead of the E convenience point located in Gangnam-si D around 14:51 to the earth’s direction, there was an accident in which the vehicle of the Defendant’s driver, who was under direct control pursuant to green signals in the direction of the intersection in the direction of the direction of the direction of the intersection (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”), conflicts with the vehicle of the Defendant’s driver who was under direct control in the direction of the intersection (hereinafter “victim’s vehicle”), and the vehicle parked on the road in the direction of the proceeding (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On July 31, 2018 and August 1, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,287,310 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 4,782,210 as the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, and KRW 9,885,160 as the sum of KRW 815,640 as the repair cost of the damaged vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that in the accident of this case, the defendant's negligence is 30% of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff, and the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's negligence.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running along an intersection where traffic control by signal apparatus takes place only in one direction, with the driver’s duty of care not to obstruct the progress of the vehicle driving along the signal apparatus, and as such, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused the instant accident by neglecting the duty of care not to obstruct the progress of the vehicle driving along the signal apparatus; and ② the Defendant’s vehicle is the vehicle.