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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. At around 09:34 on January 14, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection of the entrance door door door of the D apartment at Yangju-si to turn to the left, and entered the intersection on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time when the vehicle was closed.

Finding and stopping the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the left-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused the collision with the front part of the left-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On March 21, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 500,000 out of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as its own shares.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case was caused by the shocking of the plaintiff's vehicle while driving in the intersection of the defendant's vehicle, and thus, the accident of this case was caused by the unilateral negligence of the defendant's vehicle. Accordingly, the plaintiff suffered a considerable loss in the amount of his own share, and thus, the defendant is liable for compensation.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the point of accident of this case is merely a three-distance intersection without a direction sign or surface sign indicating that the point of accident of this case is an intersection, and that it is merely an erroneous trust that the plaintiff trusted that the vehicle of this case would naturally turn to the left at the center of the intersection, and therefore, it is merely an erroneous trust that the plaintiff is negligent in the plaintiff's vehicle.

B. According to the overall purport of each film and pleading in the evidence No. 7 and No. 1 as to the background of the accident, the defendant vehicle attempted to turn to the left in the form of overcoming the virtual center line, and the plaintiff vehicle found the vehicle left to the left to the left.