1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

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

On October 7, 2016, 22:55, 1093-3, i.e., Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the Cr., the C

On November 4, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,770,000 insurance money to the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost, etc. due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of both claims;

A. The Plaintiff: The instant accident occurred on the wind that the Defendant’s vehicle did not temporarily stop on and off a red warning line and is straighten as it is.

Accordingly, the defendant's reimbursement of 3,770,000 won is sought.

B. Defendant: The Plaintiff’s driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a yellow and flickering signal with the direction of the Plaintiff’s driving, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver should proceed with the traffic of other vehicles, and at the time of the accident, can verify the progress of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the accident, so it was erroneous that the Plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident by the Plaintiff’s fault, even though it could avoid the collision with the Defendant by reducing the speed or rapidly passing through the intersection.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the direction of the running of the Defendant vehicle at that time is a red and flickering signal, and the direction of the running of the Plaintiff vehicle was a yellow and flickering signal, and ② such.