1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

On September 12, 2017, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) was stopped in order for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was prior to the situation of collision to the F Burial located in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to make a right-hand at the said intersection. The Defendant vehicle, the rear-way vehicle, was stopped after entering the front right-hand narrow space of the Plaintiff vehicle, and the vehicle was stopped at the right-hand door of the Plaintiff vehicle while the vehicle was moving back to the said intersection. The Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving at the right-hand door of the lower right-hand door of the Plaintiff vehicle, and was paying KRW 1,125,890 (self-damage).

B. The judgment of the first instance court judged the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 40:60, and calculated the Plaintiff’s amount of reimbursement as 675,534 won.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap 1 to 3, 5, 6, 8, and Eul 2 to 4

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred by entering the right space of the plaintiff vehicle into the right space of the plaintiff vehicle in order to bring the plaintiff vehicle stopped in advance at the intersection. Thus, the defendant vehicle's fault ratio is 100%.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the judgment of the court of first instance that the ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle's fault is 40%, since the accident of this case is an accident caused by concurrent negligence that violates the duty of safe driving to check the right well while bypassing the plaintiff's vehicle.

B. According to the images of Gap evidence Nos. 8 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, the defendant vehicle: (a) was stopped by the plaintiff's vehicle prior to the defendant vehicle while making a stop in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Road Traffic Act on the duty of care in the right-hand display in order to make a right-hand turn to the intersection of this case; (b) the defendant vehicle entered the right-hand space of the plaintiff vehicle with the intention to make a right-hand turn to the right-hand side in the future;