Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount of payment order shall be revoked.

1. At the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, at around 23:45 September 2019 at the time of the collision between the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle CD and the Defendant’s insured vehicle in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter “instant intersection”) and the Plaintiff’s vehicle waiting for the instant intersection in the condition that it stopped on the two-lanes, and the Defendant vehicle waiting for the signal before the instant intersection. The Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle departed from the straight line and proceeded to the instant intersection. The instant accident occurred as follows: (a) on the wind coming into the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle toward the front left side of the Defendant vehicle and the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle; (b) the Plaintiff’s material damage amounting to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 1,600,000, KRW 400, KRW 100, KRW 2000, KRW 2019, Mar. 13, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, 8 through 10, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident is an accident involving the Plaintiff’s driver’s change of course to the right side of the instant intersection where the Defendant’s driver is prohibited from changing course. As such, the Plaintiff’s driver is not negligent, and at least 10% of the Defendant’s driver’s negligence should be recognized.

B. At the two-lanes of the instant intersection by the Defendant, the signal atmosphere is set.

Since the starting vehicle is not necessarily required to be operated as a one-lane of the road, there is no reason to believe that the defendant vehicle will naturally enter the one-lane at the time of the accident in this case, and therefore, as the driver of the plaintiff vehicle has a duty of care to take the movement of the defendant vehicle into account well, the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who violated this duty should be considered.

3...