1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order for payment shall be revoked, and

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor is the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). With respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff is the insurer who concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 19, 2017, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded along with the back-way road located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangnam-gu. At the 4-distance intersection, the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was located on the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the lower part of the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was located on the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle

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

On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,080,000 for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle (excluding KRW 500,000 for self-payment) as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's vehicle entered the intersection. The plaintiff's vehicle was driven by the plaintiff's vehicle and the accident occurred while discovering the defendant's vehicle. The accident occurred, the plaintiff's vehicle was a situation where it was difficult to set a speed by driving the road, the entrance speed of the defendant's vehicle was reasonable, and the plaintiff's vehicle was driving at the road to stop down the road. The plaintiff's vehicle immediately shut down the vehicle, but the defendant's vehicle cannot be determined as a road with a wide area of the road after the operation of the vehicle. The defendant's negligence on the part of the defendant's vehicle is equivalent to 80% in the accident of this case. Accordingly, the defendant's accident of this case entered the intersection of the defendant's vehicle, the vehicle's width was wide, and the vehicle's right-hand road cannot be determined.