1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under the following paragraph (2) shall be revoked.

2.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for BM3 vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) with A, and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for CNA vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 15, 2017, at around 13:45, A, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and passing through the E intersection in Daegu-gun D (hereinafter “instant intersection”), there was an accident in which the two sides of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle entering the instant intersection from the right side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the part of the front part of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict.

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

On August 30, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,520,000 to A for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-2, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the party's assertion (i) the original vehicle entered the instant intersection prior to the Defendant vehicle's entry, as well as the road that the Plaintiff's vehicle driven prior to the instant intersection was a road more clearly wider than the road that the Defendant's vehicle driven at the instant intersection, and thus, the Defendant's vehicle driven at the instant intersection had priority to proceed with the instant intersection, and therefore, the Defendant's vehicle driven before the instant intersection was reached, should have seen the movement of the Plaintiff's vehicle, and the Plaintiff's vehicle should have entered the instant intersection after going through the instant intersection. However, the instant accident occurred while entering the instant intersection, while entering the said intersection.

Considering these circumstances, the fault ratio of the driver of the defendant vehicle in the occurrence of the accident in this case is at least 70%.

However, the plaintiff on August 2017.