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

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On October 31, 2017, around 18:55, the Defendant’s vehicle is going to turn to the left on the left of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving a road that is one-lane connected to the 10-lanes of the 10-lanes located in the Yandong-dong-gu, Manyang-si. However, the Defendant’s vehicle turned to the left on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while making a right-hand on the front side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle when making a right-hand turn to the front side of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On November 9, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 684,900 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred while the vehicle of this case was on the part of the plaintiff's vehicle with the completion of the bypass. The plaintiff asserts that the negligence ratio of the defendant's vehicle in this case should be reflected as 70%.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's vehicle was responsible for the accident of this case, despite the fact that the defendant's vehicle was the left-hand turn in accordance with the new name, the plaintiff's vehicle had the accident of this case caused the accident of this case.

B. Examining the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of each of the evidence and arguments as seen earlier, namely, the video at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is bypass from the 10th century, and the Defendant’s vehicle is bypass.