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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B automobiles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to C Freight Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 14:00 on June 1, 2014, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor drivened the Defendant’s vehicle into one lane among the two-lane roads in the direction of the direction of the operation (hereinafter “instant intersection”) prior to the instant intersection, while moving back to two-lanes among the three-lane roads in the direction of the end, the Defendant’s assistant driven the two-lanes on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle moving to the right side of the instant intersection (hereinafter “instant accident”). On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle moving to the right side of the instant intersection over the two-lanes and three-lanes of the right side of the instant intersection, leading to an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The instant intersection is a three-lane road in the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle, both of which are the two-lane road prior to the entry into the said intersection to the said intersection, and the two-lane road to the right side of the intersection is the exclusive road prior to the right side of the intersection, which is the three-lane road in the direction of the right side of the intersection.

On June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 471,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence 1, 4 (excluding the part of a photograph explanation), and 5, Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including the number of pages), Gap's testimony and overall purport of the pleading by the witness of the trial at the court / [Evidence Evidence] Gap's 2, 3, 4, and 6

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s body of the vehicle, which was stopped due to the Plaintiff’s body of the vehicle. However, the Defendant’s Intervenor, the Defendant’s assistant driver, did not regard the Plaintiff’s vehicle and did not unilaterally shock the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to breach of the duty of safe driving.