1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs arising from the appeal shall be the incidental appeal of the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On May 24, 2019, around 06:30 on May 24, 2019, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was straighted in front of the retired playground in Busan Dong-dong, Busan, pursuant to new signs, there was an accident of collision between the right side side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which immediately moved in the non-protection unit, immediately on the opposite two-lane (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,236,300 as repair cost until July 2, 2019, and the Defendant’s driver paid medical expenses of KRW 104,540.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident was caused by Defendant’s negligence by 100% of the Defendant’s driver’s 100% of the insurance proceeds paid to the Defendant, and sought payment for the total amount of KRW 4,340,840 and damages for delay

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in light of the facts admitted earlier, Defendant vehicle drivers have the duty of care not to obstruct the passage of vehicles directly engaged in under good faith in the event of the non-protection assistant.

However, it can be recognized that the accident of this case was caused by the mistake that caused the accident of this case, without considering the progress of the plaintiff's vehicle properly. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the accident of this case was caused by the principal negligence of the defendant's driver who violated the method of non-protection coordinates.

C. However, according to the evidence record, the intersection where the accident of this case occurred is a place where the vision of non-protection coordinates is allowed.