1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered to be additionally paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On July 7, 2018, at around 14:20, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the intersection without signal apparatus at the front side of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F apartment Gdong (hereinafter “instant intersection”), and shocked from the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the instant intersection, the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which entered the instant intersection from the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, into the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On July 31, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,214,370 as insurance money after deducting KRW 500,000 of the self-paid cost for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle was obligated to yield the course to the Plaintiff’s vehicle that first entered the instant intersection. As such, the instant accident occurred by the total negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle. (ii) At the time of the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not first enter the instant intersection than the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle is the right-hand side of the instant accident, and thus, it is reasonable to deem the negligence ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle as 45% in the instant accident.

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as revealed prior to the above facts, namely, ① the shock level of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is contrary to the right side, whereas the shock level of the Defendant’s vehicle is the front part. The Defendant’s vehicle is going to the front part, and it appears that the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which had already been entering the intersection of this case, is shocking the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and ② in the direction of the passage of the Defendant’s vehicle, the speed preventing the speed immediately preceding the intersection.