1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Doning Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the E small passenger vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 5, 2018, around 14:05, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly located along the two-lanes from the boundary of the new Tri-distance Intersection in the new park, along the side road where the median line was not installed on the H high-section surface in the vicinity of the G Service Center located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F, and along the side road where the median line was not installed on the H high-section surface in the front of the new park.

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

On November 9, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 3,445,90 in total (excluding KRW 500,000 on its own charges) with the repair cost, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 5 through 8, Eul evidence 2 through 5, 7 through 16 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle had entered the said intersection first, the instant accident occurred with the wind to enter the said intersection by accelerating the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the change into a green signal, and thus, the instant accident was wholly caused by the negligence of the Intervenor’s Intervenor, who is the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle,.

B. The defendant's alleged vehicle entered the above intersection in accordance with the new code. The accident of this case occurred entirely on the part of the plaintiff's driver, since the plaintiff's vehicle did not have any signal, at the wind to pass the above intersection, the accident of this case occurred entirely by negligence of the plaintiff's driver.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above-mentioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., the Defendant’s vehicle entered the said intersection in compliance with the speed limit according to the straight signal.