A. On July 20, 2015, around 08:10, the incident occurred between the vehicles (A; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicles”) that the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract and the vehicles (B; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicles”) that the Defendant entered into an insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicles”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

B. When the Plaintiff’s vehicle was considerably damaged due to the instant accident, making it impossible to repair the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,280,000 as insurance money to the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on August 4, 2015, and returned KRW 500,000 with the proceeds from the sale of the remainder of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on August 13, 2015, and disbursed the difference corresponding to KRW 8,780,000.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 2 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The argument and the key issue are asserting that the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, while the Defendant asserted that the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle contributed at least 20% to the accident of this case.

Therefore, the issues of the instant case are how the fault ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendant are applied to the instant accident.

3. Determination

A. Considering the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the negligence ratio, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1’s overall purport of pleadings, the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle on the part of the non-protection line, which caused the instant accident while making a left-hand turn at the front section of the non-protection line without yielding the course to the plaintiff vehicle located in the intersection of this case. However, even though the defendant vehicle entered the intersection of this case first, it is determined that the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle on the instant accident contributed to the expansion of damages. Thus, the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle on the instant accident.