1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,623,300 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 18, 2017 to January 15, 2019, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile of the Plaintiff in question (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the DM5 vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 12:50 on September 27, 2017, E, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the wind intersection (Twit-type) on the wind side in the south-gu, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Yan-gu, Incheon, into the blue-gu screen, conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle on which the F, who made a left-hand turn to the left-hand turn to the left-hand turn to the front-hand screen, was driven to the extent that the Plaintiff’s vehicle cannot be repaired due to its shock.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff disposed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by transfer, and paid KRW 32,319,000,000 calculated by subtracting the remaining value of KRW 2,881,00 from the value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the value of KRW 35,20,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-1, 2, 2, 4, 5, 6, Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole of the arguments

2. Determination:

A. The instant accident appears to have occurred while F, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, attempted to turn to the left without protection.

However, in the meantime, E, a driver of the Plaintiff, has a fault of shocking the Defendant’s vehicle that had already entered the intersection without properly checking the Defendant’s vehicle that attempted to turn to the left at the left and without reducing the speed.

In light of the above circumstances, it is reasonable to 30% of the fault ratio of both parties’ vehicles and 70% of the Defendant vehicle.

B. According to the cited amount, the Defendant’s 22,623,300 won (i.e. 32,319,000 won x 70%) and the Plaintiff’s insurance money payment date, which is the date following the final payment date of the insurance money sought by the Plaintiff, is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation from October 18, 2017 to January 15, 2019, the date of this judgment, which is stipulated in the Civil Act.