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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On May 21, 2019, at around 17:50, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was travelling along a two-lane road in front of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, along a one-lane road from the direction of the direction of the direction to the right side. While the Defendant’s vehicle stopped on a two-lane road near the above right side of the vehicle, there was an accident where the two-lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the part of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the right side conflict (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On June 5, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,349,000,000 in total, except for KRW 500,000,000, as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence of No. 1, 2, 4 through 7, Eul’s evidence of No. 1, 3, 5, and 7 (including branch numbers for which there are branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) that the defendant vehicle illegally stopped at the edge of an intersection, which is a place where stopping is prohibited, and thus, the plaintiff vehicle had no choice but to attempt to make a right-hand turn on the one-lane. The accident of this case occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, since the defendant vehicle, while the vehicle on the right-hand side of the plaintiff vehicle, departs from the road without considering the road situation, and the accident of this case occurred.

In addition, the driver of the defendant vehicle is negligent in violating Article 18 (3) of the Road Traffic Act.

(2) The Defendant taxi, who is the Defendant taxi, was in a temporary stop for passengers’ getting on and off, and was waiting for the signal, so was not in a situation of illegal stopping, and the Plaintiff vehicle is the Plaintiff.