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 a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to ACU car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B 11 ton truck (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 16:04 on February 12, 2015, C driven the Defendant’s vehicle and proceeded to a river basin in the front of the Defendant vehicle in front of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (E) by driving the Defendant vehicle at a one-lane of five-lane, but failed to meet the permissible point for the U.S., and led to a mistake that wnd the center line of the yellow-ray, and led to a mistake that wned, C completed the right-way at the left-hand side of the course of the yellow-ray intersection, and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was fleeped in a two-lane opposite to the above road, was shocked.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,645,700 as insurance money in the name of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On the other hand, C was charged with summary charges for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in relation to this accident. On April 24, 2015, C was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million with Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 2015 High Court Decision 201Da3010, and the above summary order was finalized on May 28, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including virtual numbers), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the accident of this case occurred due to the overall negligence of Defendant vehicle, which caused the center line without permission for internships, and sought full payment of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff against the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant was installed on the side of the plaintiff's vehicle in the front intersection where the plaintiff's vehicle was circumvented, and at the time of the accident, the defendant's vehicle was in front of the defendant's vehicle in accordance with the pedestrian signal, and all of the vehicles in front of the defendant's vehicle were under normal internships.