1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant succeeding intervenor in the case of the plaintiff 5,110,000 won and 3,650.

1.The following facts of recognition may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purpose of the entire pleadings on the statements or images set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including branch numbers in case of supplemental numbers) and Eul evidence 1.

With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is the insurer who entered into each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle shocked by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant”) around 18:10 on June 12, 2014.

B. Around 18:10 on June 12, 2014, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and proceeded along the Doro, which is a four-lane road near the Madong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, along the three-lanes of the ero apartment-distance shooting distance, along the intersection where the instant road and the instant three-lane house are cross-sections (hereinafter “instant intersection”), while entering the intersection where the instant road and the instant three-lane house are cross-sections (hereinafter “instant intersection”), the part on the right side side of the Defendant’s vehicle, the upper side of which the instant house on the left side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection from the back road, was shocked as the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

By July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 7,300,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

On June 30, 2015, an intervenor acquired the status and business of the defendant under all insurance contracts from the defendant, and the intervenor succeeded to the status in the trial, and the defendant withdrawn from the lawsuit of this case with the consent of the plaintiff.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral negligence on the part of the Defendant’s driver on the ground that the Defendant’s vehicle entering the instant intersection, which was normally exposed to the instant intersection, by means of a direct margin signal, without violating the signal.

Therefore, Defendant vehicle.