1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall add 384,000 won to the plaintiff and this.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. Around 21:15 on December 24, 2013, D driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the direction of the Priju Hospital along three lanes in front of the Korea Rural Community Corporation in Geum-dong, Geumju City. At the time, the front of the project in front of the project in the agricultural and fishing village, as in the form of an accident site map, an accident occurred in the shape of a third line of the Plaintiff’s driving direction, which is a sloping road crossings by the third line of the main road of the Plaintiff’s driving direction, and a sloping road, which is a main road with no new and new lines, along the road along which the Plaintiff’s vehicle passed the said intersection, and the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On January 8, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,280,00 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, as the insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, Gap evidence 6-1 to 11, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the fact inquiry results with respect to the chief of the police station having jurisdiction over the case, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, when the signal for the vehicle in the front line was changed to an intersection prior to the arrival of the accident at the point of the accident at issue, the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs along the intersection, and it was in conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle passing through the Defendant’s vehicle with the signal crossinging the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and without a line. The vehicle using the said small line is possible to enter the intersection at issue, but there is a temporary suspension control sign at the time of entering the intersection, and thus, it does not interfere with the operation of the vehicle led after temporary suspension.