1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to C-Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to D-motor bicycles (hereinafter “Defendants”).

B. Around 19:00 on September 5, 2018, the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, who was directly related to the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was at the left-hand turn at a three-distance intersection without a signal signal prior to the E apartment in the Goyang-dong-gu, Youngdong-gu, Ilyang-si, and the front part of

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

On September 18, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the amount calculated by deducting self-charges of KRW 1,082,860 from the insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (at least 20% of the total amount of damages (at least 200,000 won/ maximum 50,000 won).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 5-8, Eul evidence No. 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) the instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of Defendant 1, who violated the intersection traffic method, even though the Plaintiff’s vehicle fulfilled its duty of care within the intersection of the accident site and completed the left-hand turn, and thus, the fault ratio of Defendant 1 should be deemed to be 100%.

(2) The instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was to turn to the left without neglecting the duty of the front left-hand turn within the intersection, and thus, the fault ratio of the Defendant vehicle shall be deemed 0%.

B. (1) According to the above evidence, the instant accident occurred when the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the “T”-based crosssection along the front side of the house and went to the left, and the front side of the vehicle came to conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the intersection and went to the left at the latest, and the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle tried to turn to the left at the intersection of the Plaintiff’s vehicle during the police’s internal investigation of the instant accident.