1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part pertaining to the participation in the appeal is the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, at around 21:45 June 29, 2019 at the time of the insured vehicle D E of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff insured vehicle, the first part of the Defendant vehicle, which was non-protectioned in accordance with the direct margin signals in the above intersection in front of the F building in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, was paid to the Plaintiff, and 200,000 won (based on recognition) for the insured vehicle of self-paid vehicle of the first to 2,835,300 won for the payment of the collision insurance proceeds, and the purport of the entire pleadings, images, and pleadings, all of which are described in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and 7, respectively.

2. In light of all the circumstances that can be recognized by the aforementioned evidence, such as the fact that the driver of the defendant vehicle is anticipated to go straight on the opposite lane, the defendant vehicle seems to have entered a somewhat far-known line in light of the conflict part, the place of the accident, and the conflict part, etc., the accident in this case is determined to be caused by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who discovered the vehicle that was late after the defendant vehicle due to neglecting to go on the front line, without thoroughly examining the traffic situation of the front line, and by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who moved on the non-protection line, and it is reasonable to view the error ratio as 3:7.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,924,710 (i.e., the total amount of damage 3,035,300 x 70% x self-paid 200,000 won - Supreme Court Decision 2015Da236431 Decided January 28, 2016) as well as damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 11, 2019, which is the date of the first instance judgment, which is appropriate to dispute over the existence or scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation until September 27, 2019, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed due to the lack of reasonable grounds.

The judgment of the court of first instance is the same.