1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered to be additionally paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with D cab (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On December 15, 2018, around 19:03, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the front side of the Plaintiff’s right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, the front side of which turned to the left at the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, going to the right side along one lane among the three-lanes at the intersection of private road adjacent to the F.S. located in Heung-gun, Yannam-gun.

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

On January 25, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,301,00 as insurance money after deducting KRW 500,000 of the self-paid cost from the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 8 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, namely, the location where the accident in this case occurred is a private-distance intersection where traffic is controlled by signal apparatus and the non-protective coordinate is permitted. However, in such a section, the accident in this case is permitted only when there is no vehicle driving along the non-protective coordinate. The defendant vehicle attempted to turn to the left without using the direction direction even though the vehicle in this section was in close vicinity to the intersection by the vehicle in front of the vehicle in this section. The plaintiff vehicle entering the intersection in the night while driving one lane at night, and the plaintiff vehicle entering the intersection pursuant to direct Jin new, might have difficulty avoiding the course of the vehicle in the Gap line even if the speed is lowered. In light of the above, the accident in this case is deemed to have occurred by negligence of the defendant vehicle.

B. Therefore, the defendant, who is the mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle, is the plaintiff pursuant to Article 682 (1) of the Commercial Act.