1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) in the judgment of the first instance amounting to KRW 5,680,000 and its corresponding amount on August 8, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with B and C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the driver of D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 00:10 on July 8, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately left directly without temporarily stopping the intersection of private distance (hereinafter “instant intersection”) near the oil station in Western-si E (hereinafter “instant intersection”) from the Homepller’s side, even though the traffic signal on the front line has been reded.

C. The Defendant entered the said intersection without examining the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is proceeding on the left side of the said intersection, while proceeding the instant intersection from the 5th side of the East Hong-Gongju Complex to the intersection.

As above, there was a traffic accident caused by the Plaintiff’s driver B and the Defendant’s negligence in front of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the front section of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). E.

On July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,021,575 (i.e., the balance of the loan KRW 4,004,275), and KRW 10,178,425, and the sum of KRW 14,20,00,00 to B on August 7, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 that the instant accident occurred when the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the instant road to the red on-and-off signal, and the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to pass the intersection to the intersection in an excessive speed to the yellow on-and-off signal. As such, the instant accident is caused by the negligence of violating the signal signal of the Plaintiff vehicle and the negligence of violating the Defendant’s speed and signal.

Therefore, the defendant's negligence ratio to the plaintiff.