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.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to Aystay car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B rocketing taxi (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On October 3, 2014, around 19:35, the accident occurred with the Defendant’s vehicle that was driven in the direction of the Jeongyeong-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government at the intersection near the Jeongyeong-gu (hereinafter “instant intersection”) where the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeds in the direction of the Jeongyeong-gu in the direction of the green street in the direction of the horizontal angle, and the left turn to the left in the direction of the Namsan 3 tunnel, which occurred.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The part of the collision was the front part of the Plaintiff’s steering force and the part of the Defendant’s driving seat.

B A A B

C. By November 19, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,319,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of the parties to the above legal purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the plaintiff's vehicle made a left turn to the left turn in the direction of a tunnel No. 3 tunnels in accordance with the left turn turn, while the defendant's vehicle was in violation of the signal and proceeded to the direction of the No. 3 tunnels.

A vehicle that goes against the Defendant’s assertion of this case is the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The Defendant’s vehicle is merely a cross-section according to the straight line.

Judgment

According to Gap evidence No. 6, an investigative agency concluded an internal investigation by asserting that all the plaintiff's vehicle and the driver of the defendant's vehicle have violated the signal, but there is no objective proviso, and thus it is difficult to prove the violation of the signal by both vehicle drivers. There was no clear superior evidence on which one of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle violated the signal.