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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with D business-use taxi (hereinafter “Defendant”).

나. 원고 차량은 2018. 3. 5. 5:58경 서울 마포구 E에 있는 F 앞 삼거리(이하 ‘이 사건 교차로’라 한다)에 이르러 신호등이 설치되지 않은 편도 1차로 도로에서 우회전하고 있었는데, 진행 방향의 좌측에서 피고 차량이 신호등이 설치된 편도 3차로 도로의 2차로에서 직진 신호에 따라 주행하다가 이 사건 교차로에서 3차로로 진로를 변경하는 과정에서 피고 차량의 우측 앞부분으로 원고 차량의 좌측 부분을 충격하였고, 위 충격으로 인해 피고 차량이 좌측 인도로 튕겨져 나가면서 인도 화단과 가로등을 파손하는 사고가 발생하였다

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

In the instant accident, KRW 4,489,020 of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle occurred. On March 27, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 3,989,020 (=4,489,020 - 50,000), which deducts KRW 500,000 of the Plaintiff’s self-charges.

In addition, on March 15, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 1,716,000 with expenses for repair and recovery of street lamps and street lamps.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and Eul evidence 5 to 7 (including each number), the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident is an accident resulting from the Defendant’s driver’s fault ratio of at least 40% on the ground that the Defendant’s vehicle was in breach of the duty of care at the instant intersection where the change of course is prohibited, and the Defendant’s driver’s fault ratio should be recognized.

B. The instant accident by the Defendant did not temporarily stop before the Plaintiff’s vehicle enters the instant intersection and did not look at the front and right.