1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant

B. Around 09:20 on October 9, 2013, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle and proceeded in violation of the signal from the direction of the path in the direction of the path, and the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle driven in accordance with the straight line on the right side of the direction of the Defendant vehicle, which was driven by the Defendant vehicle and proceeded in in violation of the signal from the direction of the path.

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

On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 12,630,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant paid KRW 1,121,500 to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number in case of additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the accident in this case was caused by the principal negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who entered the intersection in violation of the signal, but in light of the situation of the collision of the original defendant vehicle and the progress of the vehicle at the time recognized by the evidence above, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle was negligent in violating the duty of care to prevent the accident while taking into account the movement of the vehicle although it was possible to find that the defendant vehicle entered the intersection at the time when the vehicle was discovered, and the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle seems to have caused the accident in this case. Thus, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle as 10:90.

B. Therefore, the Defendant’s indemnity amount to be paid to the Plaintiff is KRW 11,367,00 (= KRW 12,630,000 x 0.9) equivalent to the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle out of KRW 12,630,000 paid by the Plaintiff.