1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 12:00 on July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a traffic accident that conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle that passed the above intersection from the right side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s course to the direct crossing (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On September 8, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 13,140,000 of the insurance money as the repair cost for Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or images of Gap evidence 1, 3, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the statements and images set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff vehicle at the time of the accident in this case passed the intersection by straight transit in violation of traffic signal, and the defendant vehicle was straightened along the four-lanes from the right side of the plaintiff vehicle driving direction to the right side of the vehicle in this case, and even though the traffic signal apparatus in the direction of the course was changed to yellow signal, it is recognized that the vehicle entered the intersection as it was without lowering the speed.

According to the above facts, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who passed the intersection in violation of the traffic signal, but the driver of the defendant vehicle also has been negligent in entering the yellow-road intersection in an unreasonable manner, so the fault ratio of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle shall be 90%: 10%.

Therefore, the Defendant, as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, has paid the Plaintiff KRW 13,140,000 (i.e., KRW 13,140,000 x 10%) and as to this, there is a considerable dispute over the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation from September 9, 2016 until September 13, 2017, which is the date when the judgment of the first instance is rendered.