2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 10:30 on February 15, 2018, the three-lanes where the front signal is installed in the Sinsi-si, the Sinsi-si, the Sinsi-si, 3054 Sinsi-si (hereinafter “instant intersection”). The Defendant’s vehicle entered the instant intersection as three-lanes from the front side of the bachelor’s horizontal intersection to the front side of the Sinsi-si, in accordance with the straight line. The Plaintiff’s vehicle turned the front right part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff’s left part of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 12, images of Gap evidence No. 15, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s vehicle first entered the instant intersection and was making a bypassing the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Thus, even if the Defendant’s vehicle could avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle by reducing the speed or changing the vehicle line into the two-lane, the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s negligence in performing such duty of care. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 376,130, and KRW 550,000,000, KRW 24,123,870, and KRW 30,000,000 as a material damage due to the Plaintiff’s scrapping of the Plaintiff’s vehicle pursuant to Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act.

B. In full view of each of the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s vehicle was an cross-section signal prior to the entry into the instant intersection, and the Defendant’s vehicle was an irregular vehicle or the Defendant’s vehicle, prior to the entry into the instant intersection.