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

2...

On November 27, 2018, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) of the Defendant Insured Vehicle D (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) at the time of the accident: (a) the situation of the collision of the vehicle at the exit of the building parking lot in Seocho-gu, Busan Metropolitan City around November 27, 2018 at the location of Goyang-si (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”); (b) the vehicle borrowing and lending of the Plaintiff vehicle = The vehicle of the Defendant vehicle, which the vehicle of the Plaintiff was made bypass from the two lanes of the three lanes of the vehicle of the Defendant vehicle at the time of the accident, was at the right (the collision between the front right side of the Plaintiff vehicle and the left side of the Defendant vehicle) and the insurance money paid to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2018, after deducting the amount of KRW 694,935 (the amount of KRW 200,000,00 of self-paid charges from the repair cost, KRW 894,935).

1. Fact that there is no dispute over the facts of recognition [based for recognition], Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence or video (including each number), the purport of whole pleadings;

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the evidence set forth in subparagraph 1 and the evidence set forth in subparagraph 5 above, the instant accident may be deemed to have occurred by the negligence of the driver of the original Defendant vehicle.

① The Plaintiff’s two lanes and three lanes running along the Defendant’s vehicle are likely to conflict if the two lanes move along at the same time, and the two lanes are likely to conflict. Therefore, the two lanes and three lanes, which warn the risk, are installed, and there was a stop line in front of the lanes.

Nevertheless, the accident of this case occurred while the plaintiff and the defendant did not stop in front of the stop line and did not look closely at the movement of the other party's vehicle driving along the lane next to the stop line.

(2) However, the driver of the defendant vehicle seems to stop immediately when the driver finds that the plaintiff vehicle attempts to make a right-hand way while driving the stop line at the right-hand point, compared to the stop line.