A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On May 9, 2017, when the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is driving along a three-lane road in the direction of the sloping intersection in the vicinity of the shooting distance of the Gosan-dong Citizens’ Training Complex in Masan-si, U.S. on May 17:28, 2017, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle waiting for the signal at the right-hand intersection at the right-hand intersection, when the signal, etc. is coming to the right-hand intersection in the direction of the sloping intersection, and the signal comes to the right-hand intersection of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is directly connected to the normal straight signal, caused an accident where the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocks the right-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle into the front side of the road due to its shock.

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

On November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 73,390,000 to the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost, etc. due to the instant accident, and returned KRW 2,410,000 thereafter.

【Facts without dispute over the ground for recognition, entries and images of Gap's evidence 1 through 10 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred while the plaintiff's vehicle was straighted in accordance with the green driving signal, while the defendant's vehicle violated the signal, and that the accident in this case is obligated to pay 70,980,000 won for indemnity equivalent to 100% of the charge ratio of the defendant's vehicle (=73,390,000 won - 2,410,000 won) to the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant was located in the rear bank of a considerable distance as a full-time internship where the defendant's vehicle was a U-turn, and the plaintiff's vehicle was also located in the rear bank, but did not neglect his duty of care, such as expressing the front bank, and proceeds in the intersection.