A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On November 17, 2018, around 10:25, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the two-lane green straight lines along the two-lane road in order to drive along the two-lane green straight lines in order to ensure that the vehicle driven along the two-lane green straight lines on the two-lane opposite to the aforesaid distance. However, in the process, the Defendant’s vehicle driven the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The instant accident occurred in KRW 8,030,000 for the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost. On December 13, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 7,530,000 after deducting KRW 500,000 for the Plaintiff’s driver’s self-charges (= KRW 8,030,000 - KRW 50,000).

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the vehicle of the defendant can turn to the left at the time of signal of green light at a place where a non-protective coordinate sign is marked. Thus, as long as the vehicle of the defendant was left to the left on the new name of green on the remote distance of this case where the non-protective coordinate sign is marked, the vehicle of the defendant cannot be deemed to have violated the signal.

However, when making a left-hand turn, there is a duty to make a left-hand turn safely so that the flow of the opposite vehicle does not interfere with the traffic flow, and the driver of the defendant vehicle has a duty to make a left-hand turn without stopping the unprotected left-hand turn even if the plaintiff vehicle could have been found in the opposite vehicle, so the driver of the defendant vehicle is responsible for the occurrence of the accident in this case.