1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

On August 18, 2017, at around 07:45, the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, who moved by right to the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the left side of the Plaintiff’s proceeding, were in conflict (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) with the three-distance intersection without a lane mark near the Sungdong-dong Elementary School (hereinafter “instant three-distance”).

On September 15, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,050,000 in total as repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle according to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] A, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleading of the accident of this case as to the purport of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is due to the negligence of the defendant's vehicle's whole construction, since the plaintiff's vehicle tried to directly advance the accident of this case, considering that the plaintiff's vehicle had priority to the traffic distance of the original Three-distance, and the defendant's vehicle continued to proceed without stopping the vehicle and received the plaintiff's vehicle. Thus, the accident of this case is due to the plaintiff's whole construction.

The defendant asserts that the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle is greater than the defendant's vehicle, since the accident of this case occurred because the plaintiff's vehicle first entered the three streets of this case and thereafter entered the three streets of this case without yield by the plaintiff's vehicle.

Judgment

If Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 added the purpose of the whole pleading to the images of Gap evidence Nos. 3, this case is a narrow road to the extent that there is no three-way distance of this case and it is difficult to pass the opposite vehicle to the other, and the defendant vehicle is used first to pass by.