1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to a motor vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B cab (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On July 5, 2014, at around 13:05, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and passed through the ＋ of the Jinanan-si, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu without signal signal, etc. in front of the Sung-dong, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, the part on the right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by the Defendant’s vehicle, who was directly holding the said intersection at the left-hand distance from the west section of the lower-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the right-hand side.

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

On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,200,000 of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money, and filed a claim against the Defendant for deliberation by the committee for deliberation on the dispute over reimbursement of automobile insurance (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”). On December 15, 2014, the Deliberation Committee set the rate of negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the part of the Plaintiff on December 15, 2014 as 7:3, and filed the instant lawsuit against the defect.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case was shocked by the defendant's vehicle at the time when the plaintiff's vehicle enters the intersection and is almost leaving the intersection, and that the driver of the defendant's vehicle who neglected the duty of transitioning is negligent on the front side of the plaintiff's vehicle. On the other hand, the defendant is trying to pass the intersection at a rapid speed without yielding the course to the defendant's vehicle, although the defendant's vehicle was entering the said intersection from the right side of the plaintiff's vehicle to the above intersection, and the plaintiff's vehicle was trying to pass the intersection at a rapid speed without yielding the course to the defendant's vehicle. Therefore, even if it does not do so, the rate of negligence on both sides as determined by the Deliberation Committee