A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement for private taxi vehicles B (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract for the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 19, 2016, around 00:15, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and proceeded along the one-lane road of the five-lane road (on the other hand, prior to the back) at the new YA-type YA-type YA-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U-U.

C. On January 10, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the mutual aid amount of KRW 1,496,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle who immediately changed the course to a sudden turn in the intersection, while the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's fault ratio of the plaintiff's assistant participant in this case is at least 80% since the plaintiff's assistant participant conflicts with the defendant's vehicle that had ordinarily left at the right level in the second way the left turn at the left turn.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts finding and the evidence mentioned above, namely, ① the Defendant’s vehicle affected a yellow safety zone on the right side of the two-lanes from the two-lane to the two-lane, and attempted to turn to the left immediately before the intersection stop, and ② the Plaintiff’s driver, who was the first lane, is driving along the center line of the road in advance.