1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1.The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings at the entries and videos of Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 6, 7, and Eul evidence 1 to 3:

The plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle A (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff vehicle"), and the defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant vehicle").

B. Around 18:50 on May 27, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along a one-lane road in Chungcheong-gun C, Chungcheongnam-gun, the vehicle was driven to turn to the left in the direction of 9:0 p.m. at the right intersection. The Defendant’s vehicle following the Plaintiff’s horse attempted to turn to the left at the right intersection of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat was shocked by the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On September 29, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 259,900 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred beyond the median line at the intersection where the defendant vehicle is prohibited from overtaking, and therefore, it cannot be said that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, who was behind the normal left-hand turn, has a duty of care to drive the vehicle by expressing the rear side. Thus, the accident in this case is based on the unilateral negligence of the defendant vehicle.

As to this, the defendant is an over-distance intersection, and at the time, the plaintiff's vehicle was followed by the defendant's vehicle that did not turn on the direction light, and thus, the plaintiff's vehicle was forced to turn to the left in the direction of 9 o'clock because it is anticipated that the plaintiff's vehicle will go straight or enter the direction of 11'clock in light of the location of the stopping of the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff's vehicle is about the direction of 9 o'clock.