The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On September 24, 2018, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle under the influence of alcohol 0.109% of alcohol level 05:32, and proceeded to a shift-off area on the front side of the Seocho-gu Seoul, along the roads in front of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, along with the front side of the road. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s driver entered the road beyond the median line with the median line, which is the central separation zone, and entered the opposite side. On the other hand, the Defendant’s vehicle driving at a speed of 106 km (60 km speed per hour when speed is restricted) depending on one lane among three lanes of the opposite side of the road in the madle, the Defendant’s upper part above the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the victim boarding the Plaintiff’s vehicle, due to its corresponding impact, died during treatment.

C. By December 3, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 291,547,430 in total with insurance proceeds, such as medical expenses for victims of the instant accident and the amount agreed upon.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

가. 원고 피고 차량이 제한 속도를 46km/h 초과하여 운행하지 않았다면 원고 차량은 피고 차량과 충돌하기 전에 유턴을 마쳤을 것이므로 이 사건 사고가 발생하지 않았을 것이고, 원고 차량 탑승자가 차량 밖으로 튕겨져 나가 사망하는 중한 결과는 발생하지 않았을 것이므로, 피고 차량의 과속은 공동불법행위에서의 과실로 판단되어야 하고, 그 정도는 20%에 해당한다.

B. The Defendant’s instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that affected the central line, and thus, the Defendant is exempted from liability.

3. The facts and evidence as seen earlier and the appraiser F of the first instance court.