1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2014, at around 17:48, the Defendant driven a B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driven a road without a central line in front of a natural recreation forest in the front side of the front side of the wife population at the time of tolerance, and driven the front part of the Defendant vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) in the direction of the front of the front seat of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Plaintiff

On June 18, 2014, the Plaintiff, an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract, paid KRW 7,156,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 4, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, namely, in light of the collision part of the original Defendant vehicle, the accident of this case appears to have occurred when the Defendant vehicle passes along the Plaintiff vehicle, and the width of the road where the accident of this case occurred is the degree to which one vehicle can pass along each other in both directions. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle driver who attempted to pass the vehicle excessively without thoroughly examining the left-hand turn while attempting to turn the left-hand turn, and the negligence of the Defendant vehicle driver who attempted to pass the vehicle excessively without considering the progress of the preceding vehicle on a narrow road, and in light of other circumstances such as the situation of the accident of this case and the situation at the time of collision, the fault ratio of the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle is recognized as 5:5.

B. Therefore, the Defendant’s obligation to perform the Defendant from June 19, 2014, which is the day following the Plaintiff’s insurance payment date, as sought by the Plaintiff, is KRW 3,578,00 (i.e., KRW 7,156,00 x 50%) among the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.