1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim (including the part extended through incidental appeal) is dismissed.

3...

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

On July 1, 2016, around 08:19, the intersection where there is no signal signal, etc. in front of the FMat in the city E-S., and the Plaintiff’s vehicle is crossing along a one-lane road. However, there was an accident in which the part of the front-hand corner of the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection, which entered the intersection on the two-lane road in the direction of the progress of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the part of the front-hand corner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which entered the intersection, conflict with each other.

(hereinafter “instant accident.” From July 19, 2016 to November 23, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,762,680, excluding KRW 500,000, out of the total repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as the insurance proceeds for self-motor vehicle damage.

The Plaintiff filed an application with the G Deliberation Committee for the adjustment of the above repair cost, and the Deliberation Committee deliberated on and decided the ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s fault to 70%, and the ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle’s fault to 30%. On July 28, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 1,278,800 to the Plaintiff as the amount for reimbursement.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff asserted that the parties to the instant accident, as the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection first and the Defendant’s vehicle should yield the course to the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s vehicle did not yield the course, and the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked to the Plaintiff, and thus, the responsibility for the occurrence of the accident lies entirely on the Defendant’s vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant has the right of access to the defendant's vehicle that has not entered the intersection, and rather enters the one lane, rather than the plaintiff's vehicle that enters the one lane, the defendant has the right of access.