구상금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings on the statements and images set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 and 3, respectively:
The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).
B. At around 18:00 on December 23, 2016, an accident occurred where the front side of the Plaintiff’s right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was directly located on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle that was located in the non-protection line to the green light in the high light distance (referring to the intersection where the non-protection line sign is located; hereinafter “instant intersection”) located in the high light-speed of the gu, Manam-si, Sungnam-si, where the front side of the non-protection line is facing each other.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.
On January 11, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 702,800 insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.
2. In cases where a left-hand turn is made to a green light at a place where a non-protective left-hand sign is marked, it shall not interfere with the vehicle or traffic coming from the opposite side;
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do3970 Decided July 28, 201, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) in the case of a driver of a defendant vehicle, despite the duty of care to make sure that the vehicle does not interfere with the vehicle or traffic coming from the opposite side, the driver of the defendant vehicle left the left without waiting the plaintiff vehicle to stop from the opposite side of the vehicle. (ii) The instant intersection appears to have entered the Defendant vehicle first due to a very small difference, but the time difference is not clearly distinguishable, and both the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle are all the instant vehicle.