1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. At around 15:50 on May 19, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) turned down the front left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was stopped to turn back from the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, to the right side of the Defendant vehicle, while making a right-hand turn over a three-lane road at the intersection of “FE” located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

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

On June 1, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 255,290,00, after deducting KRW 200,000 of the self-paid cost from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence No. 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 255,290 that the Plaintiff paid to the insured as the amount of indemnity.

B. The following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the overall purport of oral arguments as to the above recognition of the percentage of negligence, namely, the accident site of this case is designated as the second line road as the right-hand left-hand one, and the second line as the right-hand one despite being designated as the right-hand one, the defendant vehicle attempted to make a right-hand one while driving along the first lane; even if the defendant vehicle was prior to the entry into the intersection, even if the vehicle was prior to the entry, the plaintiff vehicle, which proceeds from the second lane in the course of the right-hand one, can legitimately make a right-hand one; and the defendant vehicle, which intends to inevitably make a right-hand one way in the course of the right-hand one, as the vehicle,