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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company running non-life insurance business, such as the comprehensive automobile insurance, and is the B insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Defendant is a company running non-life insurance business, which is the insurer of C vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. B around 11:55 on March 27, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was going to turn to the left at the front of the Daesung-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun. However, in the process where the Defendant’s vehicle, which was subsequently driven, went to the front line of the Plaintiff vehicle more than the center line of the yellow domin line, there was an accident where the backer on the right side of the Defendant vehicle conflicts with the fronter on the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On May 14, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,584,000, excluding self-paid KRW 396,000, out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle 1,980,000 due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3 through 6, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time, the Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle completed the left turn and entered the straight line, and went straightly. However, since the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle beyond the median line on the road where it is prohibited to overtake, the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s unilateral negligence.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,584,00 to the Plaintiff the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle under Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

B. At the time of the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the left-hand turn while the vehicle was in a straight line, and the Defendant’s vehicle passed the median line to avoid collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle and returned to the lane again, the instant accident occurred.

Therefore, the accident in this case occurred due to the care of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle.

3. Videos and arguments of the evidence No. 2 of the judgment of the court below.