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. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle CD on November 2, 2017, at the time of the accident, 08:20 on the 168-road 168-o, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, 247-o, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of the collision with the above location, coming to a day-to-day square plane from the lusium of the above location at the lusium, and the part of the driver’s seat of the Defendant vehicle running to the above intersection from the right edge of the vehicle to the above intersection and to the above lusium. The amount of the insurance money paid to the Defendant’s 2,645,000 won as the repair cost of the Defendant vehicle.

B. The E Committee decided 60% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the instant accident and 40% of the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, on February 22, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 1,587,000 equivalent to 60% of the above insurance amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's 1 to 3, 5, 6 evidence, Eul's 1 to 5 evidence (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. In light of the form of damage caused by the Plaintiff’s vehicle as a whole from the fronter to the rearer, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was determined as the damaged vehicle as a result of the investigation by the police station, the principal cause of the instant accident is attributable to the Defendant’s driver who shocked the Plaintiff vehicle, and the Defendant’s fault ratio is 70%, and the Defendant is obligated to return part of the indemnity amount paid by the Plaintiff on the premise that the Defendant’s fault ratio was 40% to the Plaintiff.

B. The instant accident occurred while both of the two vehicles at a private distance intersection without signal lights. Since the Defendant’s vehicle is the right-hand side, the Defendant’s vehicle has preferential right to passage on the Defendant vehicle. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle is the front part of the vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle is the left-hand side, the Defendant’s vehicle is the damaged vehicle.

3. Determination.