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

B. At around 07:40 on March 23, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection, where the vehicles going on the left side of the direction of the intersection at the shooting distance intersection at the entrance of the Han River-dong Kimpo-dong, Kimpo-si, and turned down the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the intersection at the front part of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, where the vehicles located on the left side of the direction of the intersection in order to avoid and immediately drive the said vehicle, and the vehicles located on the right side of the Defendant’s driving direction in the direction of the vehicle going through the intersection, and the vehicle turned down the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the intersection at the

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On April 28, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,450,000 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Basis] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obliged to pay the total amount of the above insurance money paid by the plaintiff in relation to the accident of this case caused by unilateral negligence on the part of the defendant vehicle and damages for delay since the accident of this case caused the accident of this case where the plaintiff's vehicle was in transit beyond the road of the plaintiff's vehicle in order to direct damage caused by the vehicles located in the intersection.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle entered the intersection by failing to properly examine the movement of the defendant's vehicle that intends to pass the vehicle's body through the damaged intersection at the front section and violating the duty of temporary suspension, etc., and that the above negligence ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle affected by the accident of this case reaches at least 30%.

B. We examine the judgment, as seen earlier.