1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

On August 3, 2018, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident cross-sections in the shape of the 4th parallel road and the 11:33 square meters from August 3, 2018, at the time of the accident. In the process, the accident of this case, which conflicts with the main driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the main driver’s vehicle of the Defendant’s seat in the shape of the 4th parallel road, centering around the above intersection, without any traffic control over the collision. The Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along a small road, was in the way of the above intersection, and the vehicle driving along the fourth parallel road (two lanes from the second line road), was in the way of facing the above intersection in order to continue straight from the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the left side, the Defendant vehicle’s vehicle passes the above intersection. The payment of insurance proceeds of this case, the amount of insurance proceeds of 910,000 won or more, its final assertion No. 281.

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle did not discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle that had already entered the intersection by neglecting the duty of care to drive safely while driving through the intersection. As such, the Defendant’s fault ratio of the Defendant’s driver on the occurrence of the instant accident ought to be 60%. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount corresponding to the percentage of the Defendant’s driver’s fault.

B. The Defendant’s instant accident was shocking the Defendant’s vehicle, where the Plaintiff’s vehicle went from the small road, and the vehicle was set up across the four-lane road from which the vehicle was set up, leading to the four-lane road. However, the Defendant’s driver did not secure the view due to the vehicle’s condition.