1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C with respect to D vehicles owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, as the owner and driver of E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), entered into a liability insurance contract with F Co., Ltd. with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

B. On May 11, 2012, at around 21:17, the Defendant: (a) driven the Defendant’s vehicle and driven the Defendant’s vehicle, and driven the Defendant’s bicycle side of the Defendant’s bicycle at the crosswalk which was installed at the intersection of the shooting distance in front of the Mat (hereinafter “victim”) in the direction of the same Eup/Myeon, depending on one lane on the two-lane road in front of the HEt located in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-si; (b) brought an injury (hereinafter “instant accident”); (c) as a result, I suffered from an injury, such as fluencing blood transfusion and fluoral aggregate, etc., of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 19,720,030,000,000,000,000 of the non-insurance premium by July 26, 2013 at the victim’s request, who was not covered by a comprehensive insurance policy. Of these, KRW 9,000,00,000, which is the limit of liability of the injured water supply, was paid by the F Co., Ltd., the liability insurer of the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the party’s assertion is that the Plaintiff: (a) the victim was a victim of a crosswalk for pedestrian safety; (b) thus, the Defendant is responsible for the instant accident; and (c) even if not, the Plaintiff’s negligence should be taken into account as a matter of course when he neglected to do so; and (d) the Defendant asserted that he was operating his automobile normally according to the driving signal; and (c) the victim violated the signal.

B. First of all, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the victim was standing on the crosswalks for pedestrians’ safety, is the health room, and thus, the health room.