1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 1,473,00 against the Plaintiff as to the Defendant and its related thereto from October 10, 2017 to January 9, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C and D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 16:38, 2017, the Plaintiff, while driving a vehicle E (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and making a left-hand turn from the set distance in front of the Gridge located in the Incheon Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, was shocked on the right-hand part of the front-hand part of the Defendant vehicle, who was left-hand at the center of the front-hand part of the Plaintiff vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff spent KRW 2,946,00 on the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the location of the accident scene, the shock level, and the degree of damage of the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff temporarily suspended the crossing without signal lights when passing through the left-hand turn on a narrow road, and had due care to check whether there was a vehicle directly driving on the road with a wide width, and then entered the intersection as soon as possible without neglecting the duty of care to enter the intersection. The so-called “subsection” was found to have been negligent by finding the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the intersection short of the speed radius, and the Defendant’s vehicle was found to have been parked without immediately stopping [the Defendant’s vehicle was at the time of stopping, but the evidence presented by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it. Rather, the location of the Defendant’s vehicle (as the stop line was proceeded about 3.5 meters) and the road situation on the photograph (as many vehicles are not fixed, the vehicle is not fixed).

) In full view of shock, damage level, etc., the Defendant’s vehicle is also deemed to have been in motion as the Plaintiff’s assertion. Ultimately, the instant accident conflicts with the Plaintiff’s negligence.