1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Plaintiff’s B vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the owner of the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 9:00 on April 6, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle was waiting to turn to the left from three lanes exclusive to the left, among the six-lanes of the long-term distance in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, to the left left at the long-term airspace, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was behind the Defendant’s vehicle.

Since then, the defendant vehicle and the plaintiff vehicle have left the left and there was an accident that conflicts with the left side of the plaintiff vehicle on the front right side of the defendant vehicle.

hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"

A) At the time of the instant accident, the movement of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and Defendant’s vehicle is as indicated in the attached sheet. C. The repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident is KRW 8,432,481 in total. [The fact that there is no ground for recognition]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, without verifying the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the point where the Defendant’s vehicle completed the left-hand turn and at the point where the intersection passes, is rapidly changed from the first lane to the second lane.

B. The instant accident alleged by the Defendant is an accident that occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while the vehicle is going to turn to the left prior to the Defendant’s vehicle, even though the change of the vehicle is prohibited in the intersection.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions and images set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 3, and 2, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident was caused by the negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle, and that the negligence ratio is 50%, respectively.

1. The long-term distance, which is the place of the occurrence of the instant accident, is the Won, the defendant.