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

The defendant.

1. In fact, the Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

Plaintiff

On May 12, 2016, while the vehicle is driving ahead of the crosswalk Samsung-dong Samsung-dong, Amyang-si, Amyang-si on May 12, 2016, it conflicts with the defendant who was standing on the left side from the right side of the vehicle of the plaintiff on a bicycle to the left side of the crosswalk.

Due to the instant accident, the parts of the front fences of the Plaintiff’s vehicle were damaged, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,008,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on August 25, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s accident of this case is that the Defendant, on board a bicycle, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle standing on the crosswalk, and is more negligent than the Defendant’s negligence.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to 90% of the amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff, which is the ratio of the defendant's negligence.

B. The instant accident was caused by the Plaintiff’s total negligence on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver, which led to the shocking of the Defendant who was a bicycle crossing by the Plaintiff’s driver.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the results of the fact-finding on the police station during the front of the judgment, namely, ① the accident site at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, the bicycle crossing was only installed, ② the bicycle crossing was installed in the crosswalk at the time of the accident at the port of the accident at the port of the accident at the port of the accident at the same time, ③ the Defendant continued to drive a bicycle without getting off the bicycle and continued to enter the crosswalk at the crosswalk, ④ the Plaintiff’s driver did not find the Defendant.