1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering additional payment shall be revoked.

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 8, 2014, in the course of the right-hand intersection in front of the D Twit-type Intersection located in the Donsan City, 08:50 on December 8, 2014, the Defendant vehicle parked in the two-lanes, and therefore, the vehicle attempted to enter by making a right-hand route from one lane to one lane, among the roads in the two-lanes, into the center line of the vehicle, which was trying to enter by making a right-hand route from one lane to one lane. As such, the part of the vehicle, which was trying to make a right-hand route from one lane of the above part, was shocked to the right-hand part of the Plaintiff vehicle.

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

On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,650,000 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional numbers) or images, Gap witness E's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred because the defendant's vehicle did not control the steering gear on the snowway, so the responsibility for the occurrence of the accident lies solely on the defendant's vehicle. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the defendant is responsible for the occurrence of the accident in this case, since the plaintiff's vehicle was negligent in breaking the central line in the course of bypassing the right line and contributed significantly to the occurrence of the accident in this case, the defendant's responsibility should be limited to 60%.

B. The fact that the Defendant’s vehicle directly caused the instant accident, as the Defendant’s vehicle turns off on the road, is as seen earlier.

Next, according to the foregoing evidence, whether the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at fault with the central line, the road driven by the Plaintiff’s vehicle was one-lane, and the vehicle parked on the right side near the intersection.