1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entries and images of Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), together with the purport of the entire pleadings:

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to Amaki S600 Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of B rocketing taxi for business use (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On February 12, 2016, at around 16:35, the Defendant vehicle received the left part of the left part of the Plaintiff vehicle left left to D from E to the right part of the Defendant vehicle at an intersection where the traffic is not controlled (hereinafter “instant intersection”) going to the right part of the direction at an intersection where the traffic is not controlled.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,554,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s assertion was sought, as the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection rather than the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver was at the duty of care to safely enter the intersection after leaving the intersection. However, the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver entering the intersection by failing to temporarily stop the intersection.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle is 20%: 80%. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s vehicle first entered the intersection at the time of the instant accident, and rather, the Defendant’s vehicle first entered the intersection, and even if not, at least the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection at the same time.