1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 07:10 on January 28, 2019, the Defendant’s vehicle is proceeding at a speed of about 20 km for the two-lanes, which are the internship section, among the five-lanes in front of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City E-do, at a speed of about five kilometers per hour. On the same direction, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was the front signal, proceeding to stop on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle when the front signal is changed to the red signal, and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked with the front part on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,154,90 as insurance proceeds, excluding KRW 200,000,00 of the insured’s self-paid share, among total damages, such as the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle, etc. due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred by drilling the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven in the two-lanes, the U.S. drive ahead of the same direction, and that it is an accident caused by the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle. 2) The Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred, as at the time the instant accident occurred, the Plaintiff committed two-lanes while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the same direction, and that the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle were concurrently constituted the instant accident.

B. In full view of the facts admitted prior to the fault ratio and the purport of the entire arguments, the instant accident appears to have occurred while the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven on the same lane, stops on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, based on the red signal.