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 has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

B. On September 1, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the above intersection from the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while passing the F convenience point front of the F convenience point in Western City E.

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

On October 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 620,500 in total with the repair cost, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was stopped to yield to the Plaintiff’s vehicle that entered the said intersection, but the instant accident occurred with the wind that the Plaintiff’s vehicle starts from the said intersection before the said intersection passes, and thus, the instant accident was entirely caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

B. Although the Plaintiff’s vehicle in transit along the Defendant’s argument ought to yield to the Defendant’s vehicle in transit at a rapid speed without temporarily stopping, and the instant accident occurred, the driver’s negligence is at least 70%.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle was passing through the above intersection in accordance with the preceding vehicle, and the instant accident occurred as the Defendant’s vehicle stopped due to the sudden exhaustion, ② the damaged part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident is left behind, and the damaged part of the Defendant’s vehicle is the front part, and ③ the said intersection is in accordance with Article 26(2) of the Road Traffic Act.