1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to CM3 vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with respect to Bsch Rexton vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. At around 20:20 on January 7, 2014, D driven the Defendant’s vehicle, leading to the Fwale road located in the Gumisi City, facing the median line from the wale room to the right side of the Defendant vehicle, which led to the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running along the two-lanes of the two-lane road to the left side from the right side of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On April 15, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,840,000 insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant's vehicle injured the central line, so the defendant, who is the mutual aid business operator of the defendant's vehicle, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the insurance proceeds of 10,840,000 won and damages for delay incurred by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle has an excessive negligence beyond the speed limit.

B. In light of the above facts and the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the accident site of this case, namely, there was a center line of yellow solid lines, and the central separation salary and blocking threshold was set up above, but the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding beyond the central line on the part without the central separation salary, and the Defendant’s vehicle is normally proceeding.

In full view of the fact that the accident in this case did not attempt to turn to the left, but did not attempt to turn to the left, and that the central line was over and tried to turn to the left, the accident in this case did not go to the central line and attempted to turn to the left.