1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. At around 14:53 on June 7, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding in the direction of the eropiced from the eropic road, a private street located in the eroctic eroctic dong, Sungnam-si, and at that time, the said intersection was not operated due to the malfunction of signal apparatus, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection after temporary suspension.

However, while the Defendant’s vehicle was driving the said intersection from the right side of the Plaintiff’s running direction to the left side of the said intersection, the front door of the Plaintiff’s vehicle passing the said intersection was shocked by the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On October 30, 2017, the Deliberation Committee on the Settlement of Claims for the Settlement of Claims for the Settlement of Claims for Compensation Payments filed by the Defendant regarding the instant accident (hereinafter referred to as the “Classification”) decided to deliberate on and coordinate the rate of negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to 20% and the rate of negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle to 80%, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,732,000 equivalent to 20% of the insurance money that the Defendant paid to the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident on November 23, 2017 according to the above decision.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence of Nos. 1 through 13, and Evidence of No. 1 to 3]

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed in light of the facts acknowledged earlier, ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have fulfilled its duty of care, such as temporary stop at the intersection where the signal does not operate, while the Defendant’s vehicle is proceeding at a rapid speed without temporarily stopping at the intersection, ② the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection even after the passage of the intersection, and thus, the Defendant’s vehicle as the Defendant’s vehicle does not yield to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is the access vehicle.