1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering payment in paragraph 2 below shall be revoked.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On May 4, 2016, around 10:50, the Plaintiff’s vehicle intending to turn to the left on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the first line of the 6th line of the 6th line line in the south of the World Cup stadium in the south of the World Cup stadium. The Defendant’s vehicle intending to turn to the left at the intersection along the instant 2nd line along the said 2nd line of the Plaintiff vehicle, following the first line of the vehicle running along the said 2nd line. The front right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by the Defendant’s left side side.

C. The Plaintiff spent KRW 1,034,000 on September 9, 2016 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the foregoing accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The accident of this case occurred because the Defendant’s vehicle, which followed the second line after the Plaintiff’s vehicle, did not operate the direction light on the crosswalk where a change of course is prohibited, and did not operate the direction light on the left side of the crosswalk, and affected the course of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by changing the direction to the left side, the Defendant’s vehicle is entirely liable for the accident

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff who acquired the right to indemnity by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions on subrogation by the insurer.

B. The accident of this case occurred by the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving on the right side while avoiding the vehicle in the front section, and entering the course of the Defendant’s vehicle. The Plaintiff’s vehicle is deemed to have driven to the extent that the front vehicle was not visible at the time of the accident, and attempted to go straight to the left right at the exclusive intersection. Therefore, the Defendant’s liability for the accident of this case is attributable.