1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On January 7, 2016, around 18:45, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded along the straight-line lane near the light beam model (hereinafter “instant intersection”) before reaching the intersection. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle came to turn to the left at the intersection, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly located on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked with the front part of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On January 22, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,218,550 as the repair cost for Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purpose of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection to turn to the left, the instant accident occurred in violation of the duty of care, and since the Defendant’s fault ratio of the Defendant’s driver is 20%, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to 20% out of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff as a reimbursement. 2) The Defendant asserted that, although the Defendant’s vehicle was directly promoted from the two-lanes, the Defendant’s vehicle was in line with the straight line signal at the intersection, the instant accident occurred at the right to turn to the left after the passage of the crosswalk. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was going to the intersection after the passage of the intersection, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was going to the right to turn to the left. Therefore, the Defendant’s negligence

B. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the evidence submitted by the judgment 1.

(1) Before reaching the intersection, the road shall be four-lanes.