1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered to be additionally paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. Around 18:55 on February 1, 2019, the Defendant’s vehicle conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was a U-turned in accordance with the normal signals, while straighted in violation of the signal at the front intersection of G in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “instant intersection”).

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

On April 4, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,569,000 as insurance money after deducting KRW 200,000 of the self-paid cost for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

On March 8, 2018, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle was investigated under suspicion of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) with respect to the instant accident, and on March 8, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 3 million to the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle H and I for the same passenger and agreed on the part of the injury occurred in relation to

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1 to 12, Gap's evidence 7, Eul's evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to negligence of 100% of the Defendant’s vehicle that violated the signal. 2) However, the Defendant’s vehicle was able to sufficiently discover that the Plaintiff’s vehicle had entered the intersection in the course of the instant accident in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in violation of the signal, and thus, the fault ratio of the Defendant vehicle in the instant accident is equivalent to 60%.

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, are, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle does not stop after checking that the signal, etc. in the direction at the time of the instant accident is changed to yellow light, and rather at a speed.