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

1. At the time of the instant accident, at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle CD’s insurance relation (hereinafter “instant accident”) at the time of the collision with the cross-distance of 955 Cheongpyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-si, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle left one lane of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the Cheongpung-gu, Cheongpung-do, and proceeded to the above three-distance intersection under new name. However, at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle was running the above three-distance intersection in front of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat as the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”), the payment amount of insurance money paid to the Plaintiff’s vehicle was 13,384,059 won (the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle), total repair cost of KRW 13,884,059,000 and KRW 5000,000 for self-defense 131.

2. Determination

(a) The driver of a vehicle who makes a left-hand turn at the intersection where the error ratio unprotective left-hand turn is permitted shall make the left-hand turn so that it does not interfere with the vehicle coming from the opposite side, and Appendix 6ⅡⅡ 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act;

B. In full view of the facts acknowledged by the serial number 329, the above three-distance intersection, which is the place of the accident in this case, is a place where the vision of the above three-distance intersection is allowed from the right angle of view, which is the direction of the vehicle in this case, at the right angle of view. However, in the opposite side, the plaintiff's vehicle was facing the above three-distance intersection, and thus, the driver of the defendant vehicle is obliged to safely drive the vehicle so that it does not interfere with the passage of the plaintiff vehicle with priority, and thus, it is found that the driver of the vehicle committed an error of failing to properly consider the movement of the plaintiff vehicle entering the intersection from the opposite side to the intersection without properly examining the movement of the vehicle in this case.