1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with B as the insured with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. On January 28, 2014, around 11:35, in Seocheon-dong, Seogu, Seogu, Daejeon, the Plaintiff was driven by driving the Plaintiff vehicle on the 3rd distance from the Han field apartment, and the Han field intersection was also driving a double-lane of the two-lane road on the side of the side. However, at the time, the Defendant, at the time (hereinafter “Defendant”) driven a D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”), moving off from the right side of the Plaintiff’s moving off to Samcheon-do, the Defendant was negligent in failing to comply with the duty of care to check and proceed well with the traffic situation of the intersection due to temporary suspension or slowly driving, and thereby damaging the part of the back part of the driver’s wheel of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by shocking the back evenle part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff.

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

On February 27, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,060,50,000, which is the sum of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as insurance money for the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, since the accident of this case occurred due to the Defendant’s violation of the duty of safe driving at the Defendant’s intersection, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff and the damages for delay thereof. Furthermore, considering all the circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, such as the background of the accident of this case and the shock of the original Defendant’s vehicle, etc., whether the vehicle B entered the intersection was a vehicle by neglecting the duty of safe driving by examining whether it was a vehicle entering the intersection, thereby affecting the occurrence of the accident of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s scope of responsibility to the extent of 80%.

(2) Accordingly, the defendant.