1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is the owner of the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 09:00 on July 28, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle, while making a U-turn pursuant to the new name on the road located near the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fro, was shocked by the fronter of the Defendant’s vehicle, which entered the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and is going to the opposite direction on the left side of the vehicle on the basis of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). During this process, G, the passenger of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and H, the passenger of the Defendant vehicle, suffered injury.

C. By April 9, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,300,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (credit of KRW 100,000 for self-charge), KRW 1,571,930 for the medical expenses and agreement of G, and KRW 788,860 for the medical expenses and agreement of H, and KRW 3,660 for the aggregate of KRW 3,790 for mutual aid.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, the driver of the Defendant vehicle may not, namely, be a U.S. vehicle where there is a concern for obstructing the normal passage of other vehicles (Article 18(1) of the Road Traffic Act). Even if the Defendant vehicle had already been in a position after completing the right-hand line at the time when the U.S. vehicle started to make a U.S. under a new title, the instant accident occurred while the U.S. vehicle was in a U.S. vehicle without taking measures to avoid a collision with the Plaintiff, while it appears that the Plaintiff vehicle driver could have been in a U.S. vehicle with a duty of care to look at the right-hand and right-hand side of the vehicle under a new title.