1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has concluded an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On February 10, 2018: (a) around 8:15, 2018, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was bypassing to a Tri-distance Intersection Intersection in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, which does not regulate the traffic near the F in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, the vehicle conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle that was left right on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and (b) as a consequence, the vehicle was parked at the right edge of the road

B. J. H. C. H. H.

hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case"

(c) On February 21, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,190,00 to the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle due to the instant accident. [The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,190,00 (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entry of the evidence No. 1, No. 2, 3, 5, the evidence No. 2, 2, 3, 3, and 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s vehicle is estimated by the Defendant’s vehicle with a rapid speed when the right of way has been completed. As such, the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident constitutes 80%.

Since the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,190,000 for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle due to the instant accident, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay KRW 952,00 equivalent to the ratio of the fault of the Defendant vehicle among the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff in accordance with the insurer subrogation doctrine prescribed in Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

B. Although the Defendant’s vehicle should have yield the course to the Defendant’s vehicle, the instant accident occurred by unduly bypassing the course. Thus, the instant accident is due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral fault.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The driver of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle in Article 25(1) of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “Road Traffic Act”).