1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with B and C vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. At around 15:50 on March 26, 2017, B driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle into one-lane the intersection without signal lights, etc. in Echeon-si, Yellow Road 70-2 (hereinafter “instant intersection”). The front part of the Defendant’s right side of the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection from the left side of the Plaintiff’s driving direction was shocked by the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “victim”), and due to the shock, the Defendant’s vehicle re-satisfed the front part of the D vehicle standing on the opposite side of the Plaintiff’s driving direction.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

With respect to the instant accident, on March 30, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 790,900 as repair cost of the damaged vehicle, and KRW 1,321,100 as repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on May 15, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, video, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The driver of any motor vehicle in charge of liability for damages is obliged to safely enter and pass through the intersection by passing through an intersection where traffic is not controlled (Article 31(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act) by passing through the intersection where the traffic is not controlled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da54954, Dec. 23, 2004). Article 26(2) of the Road Traffic Act provides that “the driver of any motor vehicle who intends to drive a motor vehicle into an intersection where traffic is not controlled shall yield the course only when the width of the intersection is wider than that of the road where the motor vehicle is traveling, and the driver of any motor vehicle who intends to drive a motor vehicle into the intersection from a wider road shall yield the course of the vehicle.”

In full view of the aforementioned evidence, the following circumstances, i.e., the duty to follow at the intersection of the original Defendant vehicle, are deemed to have not been observed.