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

B. On January 1, 2016, around 05:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused an accident that shocks the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the front side of the vehicle, which entered the lane with a one-way traffic mark, by left left on the right side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff, as an insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 552,760 as insurance money for the automobile repair cost due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s violation of the duty of safe driving by the driver of the Defendant vehicle, is reasonable to deem that the negligence of the Defendant vehicle is 30%, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of KRW 165,828 (52,760 x 0.3) as the amount of reimbursement.

B. The instant accident alleged by the Defendant is 100% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the road for one-way traffic and left-hand turn at the intersection and the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the road was shocked.

Therefore, the defendant does not have the obligation to pay the indemnity to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts of the negligence ratio, the accident in this case was caused by the negligence committed by the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the lane on which one-way traffic mark is marked, and by negligence not examining whether the Defendant’s vehicle has a vehicle at the intersection and to turn to the left. However, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle who normally turn to the left at the intersection is the one-way road in violation of the one-way traffic direction under Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act.