1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant, including those resulting from the supplementary participation.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s Class B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On June 29, 2016, around 18:10 on June 29, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped beyond the stop line in the stop line in the direction of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Medical Center in the direction of the Seoul Medical Center, while driving three-lanes of the 3rd line road in the direction of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Police Station (hereinafter “instant intersection”). However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped beyond the stop line in the direction of the 3rd line in the direction of the Seoul Medical Center, and was proceeding again in accordance with the straight line. However, in the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle, which was driven in violation of the Plaintiff’s pedestrian signal in the direction of the running of the vehicle, was an accident attributable to the front

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

On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 8,678,00 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry or video of Gap's 1 through 9 (including virtual number), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's driver is obliged to pay the full amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff, since the accident of this case occurred due to unilateral negligence that the defendant's driver committed in violation of the cross-section signal.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s Intervenor’s fault should be recognized more than 20%, since the Plaintiff’s Intervenor already violated the signal prior to entering the instant intersection, and that the Defendant’s failure to properly perform the duty of transmission, even if he was able to fully recognize the Defendant’s vehicle to be circumvented by the instant intersection.

B. (1) The traffic control is being performed by signal signals, etc.