1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is the driver of the vehicle C having C at the time of the following accident (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 10:20 on May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff’s driver driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the 3-lane of the E station in front of the E station in front of the Singu Park Park at the Sinando, and the previous vehicle was not immediately departed from the intersection, and the previous vehicle was changed to the 4-lane, and then passed the intersection, while the vehicle was passing through the intersection, the Plaintiff’s driver: (a) on the left side of the E station in the direction for the running of the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the line from the Sindo Authority in front of the direction for the driving of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, along the straight-line signal to the front side of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat on the right side of the vehicle.

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

On May 15, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 4,163,460 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant accident, the Defendant was negligent by entering the intersection in yellow Shin, and the aforementioned Defendant’s negligence liability ratio reaches 70%. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to claim the amount equivalent to the Defendant’s liability ratio out of the insurance money paid to the Plaintiff.

B. In full view of the above facts of recognition and the circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the above evidence, the accident in this case changed to the direction signal, but did not immediately depart from the previous vehicle, and thus, the plaintiff passed the intersection after changing the lane rapidly to four lanes, even though it is necessary to view the progress of the vehicle in the intersection.