1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), the Defendant is the insurer who concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On April 21, 2018, around 11:03, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was moving by right while driving along the four-lanes of the road located within the Hanyang-gu, Manyang-gu, Annyang-si and the fourth-lane. However, the Defendant’s vehicle driven from the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat conflict with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On May 23, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 368,590 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, except for KRW 200,000,000 of the Plaintiff’s own shares.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to Article 25(1) of the Road Traffic Act, where all drivers of the instant vehicles intend to make a right-hand side at the intersection, they must pass a right-hand side of the road in advance.

According to the above facts of recognition, the driver of the defendant vehicle in violation of the above duty has come to conflict with the plaintiff vehicle that moved by right at a four-lane, not the right edge, from among the four-lane roads. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.

Therefore, the fault ratio of the driver of the defendant vehicle is recognized as 100%.

The defendant asserted that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle did not perform his duty to keep the vehicle in front of the plaintiff's vehicle is one of the causes of the accident of this case. However, in full view of the evidence and the purport of the whole arguments mentioned above, the defendant's vehicle is more than the plaintiff's vehicle.