1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the D vehicle owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 1, 2018, the Defendant vehicle shall turn to the left and turn to the left according to the traffic signal at the high-speed speed and right-hand turn at the front speed of the petition-gu, Cheongju-ri, Cheongju-ri, Cheongju-ri, Cheong-ri, Cheong-ri,

The part after the driver's seat of the Defendant was shocked by the chief driver of the Plaintiff's vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On January 21, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 284,530 won (excluding the amount of self-paid 200,000 won of the insured) of the Plaintiff’s automobile as insurance money in accordance with the automobile insurance clause [self-paid loss] security standard.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 6 to 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case is an accident due to the unilateral negligence of the defendant vehicle, at the time of the accident in this case, the front line of the plaintiff vehicle is turned left at a two-lane which is the left line, and at the time of the entry into the intersection, the defendant vehicle overtakes the plaintiff vehicle at a rapid speed from the three-lane, the straight line, and at the same time, at the time of the entry into the intersection, the front part of the plaintiff vehicle is cut down at the front line of the vehicle, and at the same time, the accident in this case occurred.

Even if the plaintiff's vehicle does not impede the direction of the vehicle, and the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle is able to avoid the accident because it is possible to confirm the defendant's vehicle that is close to the driving direction and left-hand to the left, but it is confirmed that the violation of the duty of care is confirmed, such as changing the course to the three-lane, etc.