1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 241,110 as well as to the plaintiff on August 2018.

1. On July 29, 2018, at the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the defendant's vehicle, who was trying to pass the intersection by straighting from the left side of the moving direction of the plaintiff's vehicle while the plaintiff's vehicle in the situation of the collision to the Busan Young-dong intersection at the Busan Young-dong intersection on July 11, 2018 at the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, is a collision (referring to the attached accident site map) with the defendant's vehicle, who was going through the intersection by straighting the above location as one-lane between the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the collision between the plaintiff's vehicle and the insured driver's own share

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

B. The judgment of the first instance court judged the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle 10:90, and calculated the Plaintiff’s amount of reimbursement at KRW 1,969,990, and partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s vehicle seeking to enter the route from the route to the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the new code is obliged to yield the course to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as stated. The instant accident occurred from the front negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle that violated the duty of safe driving under the said safety subparagraph. The Defendant’s assertion that the vehicle of the Plaintiff attempted to pass the vehicle in an unreasonable manner to yellow signal, not to normally proceed with the intersection in accordance with the new code. During that process, it conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle that confirmed yellow signal on the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the direction of its proceeding and opened the vehicle by checking yellow signal on the direction of its passage.

In addition, the plaintiff's vehicle's neglect of the duty of front-down and thus becomes a collision with the defendant's vehicle that was trying to cross-section from the right side of the plaintiff's vehicle to the left side, so in this respect, the judgment of the court of first instance that recognized the error ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle as 10% should be respected

B. The video of the evidence No. 3