1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On September 24, 2014, at around 15:12, C driven the Defendant’s vehicle, and driven the Defendant’s vehicle at the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, the front part of the lower part of the Defendant vehicle, which changed from the front road to the two-lane, along the two-lane two-lanes of the speed of the powder, which is the speed from the front road to the high-speed road in front of the front road, along the two-lanes of the speed of the powder, the speed from the front road to the high-speed road. As a result, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was pushed down in the front road to the front part of the Defendant vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the Dbenz car in front to the traffic signal from the front road to the atmosphere.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,975,00 as insurance money under the name of the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 6, 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers)

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant vehicle should pay the insurance proceeds of the accident of this case caused by the whole fault of the defendant vehicle, because the accident of this case occurred because the defendant vehicle had neglected the duty of front-time watch, and caused the accident of this case due to shocking the front direction of the plaintiff vehicle. Accordingly, the defendant entered the two-lanes of the plaintiff vehicle without warning the direction that the vehicle stopped on the left-hand turn or left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-hand, and the defendant vehicle could not have predicted the entry of the plaintiff vehicle. Thus, the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle which contributed to the accident of this case should be recognized at least 70%.