1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay 1,195,000 won to the plaintiff and the defendant shall pay 1,195,000 won to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Ayst rocketing vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the Ayst Engine vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. Around 06:01 on June 29, 201, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding on the back of the mountain area in the direction of the mountain area along the intersection where no signal, etc. is installed in the vicinity of the Southern Navy C (hereinafter “instant intersection”) and the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding on the back of the mountain area in the direction of the mountain area.

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

On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,860,000 to the Plaintiff’s owner of the instant vehicle with the total indemnity insurance money in relation to the instant accident, and returned KRW 470,000 at the remaining expense on August 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as the basis of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the evidence as a whole, namely, the intersection of this case does not have a signal at the location where the first line road is visible, the width of the road where the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs is 7.2m, and the width of the road where the Defendant’s vehicle runs is 0.8m. Thus, the driver who intends to enter the intersection of this case has a duty of care to safely enter the said intersection in order not to interfere with the passage of the said vehicle by making a temporary stop or going through a stop before entering the intersection before entering the intersection of this case, and thereby, to safely enter the said intersection in order not to interfere with the passage of the said vehicle, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, while neglecting the above duty of care. Nevertheless, the accident occurred by entering the said intersection of this case, the developments leading up to the instant accident, and the driving direction of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle.