1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8, Eul evidence No. 1 to 7 (including branch numbers), and evidence Nos. 1 to 7.

With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 10, 2015, at around 18:00, a traffic accident that conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was left left to the left from the intersection (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) of Samyang-ro 77, Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul at an elementary school of the U.S. (hereinafter “the instant traffic accident”), where the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeds from the intersection (hereinafter “the instant intersection”) in substitution for the area boundary to the 4 complex entrance and exit area of the U.S. elementary school (hereinafter “the instant traffic accident”).

C. On February 29, 2016, in relation to the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,212,000 in total as repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that in the case of the crossing of this case, the driver of the defendant vehicle who illegally made a left turn without permission to turn to the left from the direction of the driver of the defendant vehicle at the U.S. at the U.S., and claimed that the traffic accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who made a left turn, and the defendant is allowed to turn to the left from the driving direction of the defendant vehicle at the U.S. elementary school at the U.S., and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle at the driver's expense exceeds the limited speed (20km/h) without temporary suspension at the intersection of this case, and thus the

B. The purport of the entire pleadings is the evidence as seen earlier.