1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the APoter Ⅱ vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into the respective automobile insurance contract with respect to the Bone Star Emergency Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 17:00 on April 5, 2017, C driven the Defendant’s vehicle at the front intersection of the Jindong-dong Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Intersection and passed the intersection by straightening the three-lanes of the four-lanes from the original irrigation room of the Chuncheon District Court to the original irrigation room. On the other hand, C, from the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly controlled by the signal of the green straight line (on the left turn and left turn turn turn turn turn signals) from the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, at the front side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 4,945,00,000, excluding KRW 200,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, Gap evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle had an accident of this case caused the instant accident by the unilateral negligence that the Defendant’s driver carried out in an unreasonable manner in violation of the signal while driving along the intersection in accordance with the straight line.

The insurer under the Commercial Act seeks to pay the amount equivalent to the repair cost by subrogation of the insurer.

(2) The Defendant’s vehicle was in transit of an emergency patient, and thus failed to comply with the signal inevitably.

Plaintiff

The driver of the vehicle could listen to the warning lights and light lights immediately before entering the intersection, and if the driver of the vehicle was able to properly check the Defendant vehicle, he did not take safety measures, such as immediately stopping, even if he could have verified the Defendant vehicle.

On the occurrence of the instant accident, at least 30% of the negligence of the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle.

B. (1) Determination was made prior to the occurrence of damages liability.