1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On June 7, 2018, around 7:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was running along the luminous street that is located in the upper 197-lane, the upper dong-dong, the 197-lane, along the two-lane green straight lines, and the Defendant’s vehicle was driving along the two-lane green straight lines from the two-lane road. However, the Defendant’s vehicle made a left-hand turn at the first-hand green straight line from the front side of the above shooting distance, and in the process, the Defendant’s front part of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked.

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

In the instant accident, KRW 2,054,680 of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle occurred. On June 15, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,554,680 (=2,054,680 - 50,000), which deducts KRW 50,000 of the Plaintiff’s self-paid share.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to Article 6(2) [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the vehicle of the defendant can turn to the left at the time of signal of green light at a place where a non-protective coordinate sign is marked. Thus, as long as the vehicle of the defendant was left to the left on the new name of green on the remote distance of this case where the non-protective coordinate sign is marked, the vehicle of the defendant cannot be deemed to have violated the signal.

However, when making a left-hand turn, there is a duty to make a left-hand turn safely so that the flow of the opposite vehicle does not interfere with the traffic flow, and the driver of the defendant vehicle has a duty to make a left-hand turn, and since the driver of the defendant vehicle could have sufficiently discovered the plaintiff vehicle that was directly driven on the opposite vehicle, the driver of the defendant vehicle did not stop the unprotected left-hand turn, the driver of the vehicle