1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On August 3, 2015, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driving the Defendant vehicle and proceeding the shooting distance in front of the lub village distance from the main elementary school of Samcheon-si, Samcheon-si to the main main part of the Plaintiff vehicle driving on the left side of the running direction of the Defendant vehicle, and shocked the front front part of the Defendant vehicle driving seat with the front part of the front part of the Defendant vehicle driving seat.

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

On December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,491,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection at the time of the instant accident, and the point at which the instant accident occurred, which was a child protection zone, the Defendant’s vehicle, at the time of the instant accident, was driven at a speed exceeding 53 km/h (30 km) and did not temporarily stop at the intersection while entering the intersection, it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was caused by the previous negligence of the Defendant’s driver, who did not take account of the moving of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, without stopping the yellow on-and-off signal from the private distance where the yellow light signal was occupied, at the time of the instant accident.

B. Therefore, as to KRW 8,541,90, which was cited by the first instance court among KRW 9,491,000 of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff, the Defendant may, upon the Plaintiff’s request, dispute as to the existence or scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation from December 15, 2015, which was the day following the Plaintiff’s payment date of the insurance money.