1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to E (hereinafter “Defendants”).

B. On April 12, 2019, around 08:30, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly located on the slope of a F station located in the 1 legal road located in the f station located in the middle of the entrance of the sampling at the 19-dong border (hereinafter “instant accident”) in accordance with the new subparagraph, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was making a left-hand turn to the left-hand turn at the slope of the entrance of the sampling at the 1 legal road located in the f station located in the direction of the f station located in the slope of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On April 30, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,080,000 to the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle for the total loss of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and returned KRW 112,000 to the sale of the remainder on May 16, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant accident occurred due to the negligence committed by the Defendant’s driver on the front side while entering the intersection, and the negligence by the Defendant’s driver on the front side was 30%. As such, it is reasonable to view that the negligence by the Defendant’s driver on the front side was 4,490,400 won (15,00 won - 112,000 won) amounting to the fault ratio of the Defendant’s driver on the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff who subrogated to the Plaintiff’s claim for damages by the Plaintiff’s owner pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial Act, among the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a delayed

The argument is asserted.

(2) The Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, had the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle (convenor) go normally in line with the straight line, but the instant accident occurred by the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle making the left-hand turn to the left at the Non-Protection Intersection. Thus, the Plaintiff’s driver was transferred to the Plaintiff’s driver.