1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to pay shall be revoked and that part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On September 6, 2018, around 19:40, the Defendant’s vehicle entered the front direction of the said apartment complex into the two-lane road in the direction of the horizontal direction (hereinafter “instant intersection”). On September 6, 2018, the instant intersection was in conflict with the Defendant’s front left right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right right part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s front right right side part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On September 20, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 588,000,000, after deducting KRW 200,000, for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, video, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as revealed prior to the above recognition of the negligence ratio, namely, ① the Defendant’s vehicle that attempted to turn to the left at the intersection of this case where traffic is not controlled, should have sufficiently taken into account the movement of the vehicle in the lane subject to entry and yield the course to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. ② The Defendant’s vehicle attempted to avoid the accident of the vehicle coming to the opposite part while going to the opposite part while going to the opposite part after entering the left the intersection. ③ On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the Plaintiff’s driver entered the intersection of this case at the very close time of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, thereby reducing the speed compared to the Defendant’s vehicle.