1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the D vehicle between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), the Defendant is the insurer who concluded each automobile insurance contract regarding the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. At around 15:10 on July 22, 2018, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor: (a) driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and checked the two-lanes at the intersection near G Elementary School located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and tried to find out and avoid a collision between the Defendant’s vehicle and the left-hand turn at the opposite one lane; (b) tried to avoid a collision; and (c) caused the Plaintiff’s collision to the right-hand side of the road

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On August 6, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff’s medical expenses of KRW 78,940 as insurance money to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's defense of this case claimed only KRW 78,940, which is part of the part for the purpose of applying the Trial of Small Claims Act even though the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff's intervenor due to the accident of this case exceeds KRW 30 million, so the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unlawful. However, the plaintiff did not assert that the plaintiff has a claim for reimbursement exceeding KRW 30,000,000 against the defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff's intervenor due to the accident of this case exceeds KRW 30,000,000. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit

3. According to the above-mentioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, in the event that the instant accident makes a left left turn at a non-protective zone, the left turn is not sufficiently secured despite the duty to make a left turn so that the flow of traffic of the opposite vehicle does not interfere with the traffic flow of the opposite vehicle, it is unreasonable to take a proper look at the movement of the Plaintiff vehicle in the opposite lane.