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 a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On April 5, 2018, at around 22:00, the Defendant’s vehicle was at the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which turned down from the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the right side along the two-lanes of the third-lane road, while the vehicle was at the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and was at the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, at the right side of the third-lane road.

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

On April 25, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 742,700, which deducts self-paid costs from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 742,700 that the Plaintiff paid to the insured as the amount of indemnity.

B. The following circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, namely, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a vehicle in direct transit along the intersection, and thus, the Defendant’s vehicle seeking to enter the intersection bypassing the vehicle would normally have to take safety measures, such as examining the surrounding areas and reducing the speed, etc. in preparation for the traffic of the straight-line vehicle where the right of priority is given. The Defendant’s vehicle should have entered the two-lanes, even though the Plaintiff’s vehicle continued to drive on the right-hand side of the third line road, the vehicle immediately enters the said two-lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was ordinarily directly directly straighted in accordance with the direct straight line of the intersection, and thus, the Defendant’s vehicle immediately enters the two-lanes in violation of the right-hand method.