1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount of KRW 1,076,876 against the defendant and its related amount shall be from December 30, 2017 to November 20, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a mutual aid agreement on Asi Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) as a mutual aid business entity, and the Defendant entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract on B automobile volume (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with the insurance business entity.

B. On August 2, 2017, around 08:50, the third line in the vicinity of the intersection located in the two-lanes in the Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the three-lanes by refusing to board the vehicle on the crosswalk, which is beyond the stop line, after the Plaintiff’s driver was able to board the vehicle on the crosswalk. However, the Defendant’s vehicle traveling on the three-lanes after the Plaintiff’s vehicle reported the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked on the two-lane, and attempted to make a bypass in the future of the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately after the change into the two-lane. In this case, the Plaintiff’s vehicle started without finding the Defendant’s vehicle attempting to make a bypass. Accordingly, there was an accident that conflicts between the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On December 4, 2017, the committee for deliberation on the dispute over the reimbursement of automobile insurance decided to consider the ratio of negligence between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle regarding the instant accident as “75:25, and to pay the Plaintiff a reimbursement of KRW 1,468,485 (=1,957,970 x 75%) to the Defendant.

On December 21, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,468,485 to the Defendant according to the above decision.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 6, Eul's evidence 2 through 4 (including Serials), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the accident of this case is a second line which makes the plaintiff's negligence and the vehicle stopping at the intersection, which violated the duty of due care, by stopping on the crosswalk at the intersection, without looking at the right and the right after the stop line, and departing from the intersection without looking at the right and the right after the stop.