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. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 11, and Eul evidence 3 (if there is a serial number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply);

(i) each entry or video, the purport of the entire pleadings

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff on the private taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) owned by A, and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a motor vehicle insurance agreement with the Defendant on the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 3, 2015, around 13:22, 2015, A driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and entered the opposite one lane, located in the middle of the two-lane distance intersection in Geumnam-dong-gu, Geumnam-gu, Gwangju, as the left left-hand one, and entered the opposite one. From the same direction, A was in contact with the Defendant’s vehicle, who entered the two-lane right-hand two lanes and right-hand one.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

From November 10 to December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,303,180,00 to the above D and third parties as the medical expenses and the agreed amount for passengers aboard the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Although the Plaintiff’s alleged fault at the left-hand lane is attributable to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle also did not confirm the Plaintiff’s vehicle that entered the opposite one lane as well as the opposite one.

Therefore, the instant accident is caused by competition between the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, and since the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle is 40%, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of indemnity of KRW 2,921,272 (=7,303,180 x 40%) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s instant accident was caused by the total negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was dispatched from the left-hand lane, and there is no negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle at all.

3. Examination of the judgment, as seen earlier, facts and evidence.