A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B cargo vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On December 21, 2015, at around 18:00, Nonparty C proceeded from the administrative intersection road located in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-do to the white room in Jincheon-do, Jincheon-do, and there was an accident of collision with the Defendant vehicle driven by Nonparty D, who was under way, was driving in the middle of the red signal with the centering line, and turned to the left at the Cheongju-do.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case")

The Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 62,260,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle until January 4, 2016.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident was issued due to the gross negligence of the Defendant’s driver who neglected the stop signal while checking the movement of the vehicle driving in the intersection with a signal signal, and neglecting his duty of care to safely proceed with the vehicle. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the Defendant’s vehicle’s liability ratio as 60%.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred is an accident that shocks the Defendant’s vehicle, which was placed in red light on the right-hand turn while the Plaintiff’s vehicle invadeds the center line in red light, and left-hand turn, and thus, the gross negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle ought to be applied at least 80%.

C. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 10, and the overall purport of video and pleading as to the ratio of negligence, are as follows: ①