1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 359,200 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from May 1, 2018 to July 10, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the automobile D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On March 17, 2018, around 17:00, the intersection where no signal, etc. is available in front of the F cafeteria in Kim Jong-si, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is operated directly from the G elementary school room to the H elementary school room. The Defendant’s vehicle was operated directly from the upper right edge of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the left I restaurant room on the left edge distance (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff’s vehicle and Defendant’s vehicle were shocked (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 499,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, except for KRW 200,000,000, as insurance money according to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 3 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to Article 26(2) of the Road Traffic Act, the driver of a vehicle who intends to enter an intersection where the traffic is not controlled, shall slowly drive the vehicle, if the width of the intersection is wider than that of the road on which the vehicle is passing, and if there is another vehicle who intends to enter the intersection from the road where the width is wider, shall yield the course for the vehicle.

However, according to the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings, the intersection in which the accident of this case occurred is an intersection where traffic is not controlled, and the vehicle of the plaintiff enters the intersection by straighting from the two-lanes of the center line to the intersection. On the other hand, the defendant's vehicle entered the intersection through the side road without the center line on the right side of the direction of the plaintiff's vehicle running, the vehicle of this case is a crosswalk immediately before the entry into the intersection, and the vehicle of the plaintiff is proceeding.