1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle CD at the time of the accident, around 11:54 July 29, 2018, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of collision to the intersection located in Gyeonggi-do average 879 at the seat of 879, left left the left pursuant to the new subparagraph. On the opposite part, the Defendant’s vehicle was in a direct operation in violation of the new subparagraph, and was in a shock of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a shocked with the said shock, and was paid the insurance money paid for the accident that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked annually due to the said shock, and was paid for the insurance money of KRW 4,712,00 on August 16, 2018 on the date of the final payment of the insurance money.

B. On December 17, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that there was a total negligence on the part of the Defendant vehicle with respect to the instant accident, and filed a request for deliberation with the committee for deliberation on the disputes over indemnity. On December 17, 2018, the committee for deliberation on indemnity indemnity recognized that there was 20% of the negligence on the Plaintiff vehicle and 80% of the negligence on the Defendant vehicle, and decided to pay the Plaintiff KRW 3,769,600 (= KRW 4,712,000 + 0.8)

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's 1 through 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff’s vehicle was left left at the intersection of this case at a normal speed, and the accident of this case occurred due to conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle, disregarding the stop signal even if it is not an emergency motor vehicle. The Plaintiff’s vehicle driven by signal apparatus with the other party’s trust in operating a vehicle according to normal method, was not negligent in the occurrence of the accident of this case, and this is due to the front negligence of Defendant’s vehicle.

D. Although the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s violation of the signal signal, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is also the Defendant’s vehicle.