1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 15:50 on April 11, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding at a speed above the median line in order to overtake the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was above the median line, at a rapid speed, and tried to turn normally to the right to the left at the same distance intersection above the margin of the Defendant vehicle while driving on the road near the downhead of the river in the direction of the river in the direction of the lower direction of the lower direction of the lower direction of the Defendant vehicle, at a speed above the median line, at which the overtaking was prohibited, and the front direction of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle, who tried to turn normally to the right to the left at the right intersection above the margin of the lower direction of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On April 16, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,429,370 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred by the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who tried to overtake with the central line at a place where the overtaking is prohibited, so the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount equivalent to the above repair cost, the amount of KRW 1,429,370, and the delay damages.

B. As to this, the defendant asserted that the defendant's vehicle would overtake the plaintiff's vehicle because the defendant's vehicle yields the course to the defendant's vehicle by driving along the vehicle and driving on the right side, but this cannot be accepted against the video of Gap's evidence 8.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the driver's negligence of the plaintiff's driver who did not turn to the left without turning on the left-hand direction should be considered, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above argument, and the defendant at the time of the accident of this case.