1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the driver of the D wheeled Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”) at the time of the following accident, and the co-defendant B of the first instance trial is the owner of the Defendant vehicle at the time of the following accident.

B. On December 30, 2014, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and going to the left at the intersection where there is no nearby signal, etc. in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle goes to the left from the runway, facing the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while entering the runway to the runway.

The front front part of the Defendant’s vehicle stopped with the front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat (hereinafter “instant accident”), which led to the injury of F and G, the front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s son, F and G suffered from the injury of each trend and base for salt.

C. By March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 4,725,190 in total with F and G medical expenses, agreed fees, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each branch number for those with several numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the collision with the defendant's vehicle located in the opposite part of the road in which the plaintiff's argument was left left, so the defendant's fault ratio in the accident of this case exceeds 50%.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to claim the amount of money equivalent to the defendant's fault ratio among the insurance money paid to the plaintiff.

B. According to the above recognition, the accident in this case occurred due to the main negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who made a left turn to the left without signal lights while neglecting his duty of care, even though the driver had a duty of care to live well and move to the left at the intersection. However, the accident in this case occurred due to the main negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who made a left turn to the left, on the other hand, the defendant is also the vehicle.