1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is the insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile DOE (hereinafter “Defendant OE”).

B. On November 3, 2019, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was straightening along a private-distance intersection that is located in the 665-10 movement in Ansan-si, Ansan-si on November 3, 2019, there was an accident that conflicts with the Defendant Oraba, who made the left turn on the right-hand side of the proceeding (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On November 19, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 5,374,000 after deducting the amount of KRW 500,00 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition】 Facts-finding, Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff of the parties asserted that the defendant Oral Ba had a responsibility to the defendant Oral Ba since he could not avoid the accident, on the ground that the plaintiff's driver could not avoid the accident on the part of the plaintiff's driver.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the responsibility ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle is about 70% since it conflicts with the plaintiff's vehicle that the defendant Orala, who was at the left turn from the lawsuit to the left.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the negligence ratio, the above fact of recognition, and the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① according to the Defendant’s black image of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, it appears that the center part of the road is considerably obstructed with the wind of the so-called “subsponsing short of the responsion” while attempting to turn to the left at the private-distance intersection of this case, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle is also at fault without temporarily stopping and proceeding at the speed without temporarily stopping.