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

The defendant.

At the time of the accident, at around 17:40 on February 18, 2020 at the time of the accident, the plaintiff's vehicle D E at the time of the accident, and at around 1,876,000 won, for self-payment of the insured self-payment of the secured self-payment of the insured self-payment of the insured self-payment of the insured self-payment of the secured vehicle, 469,000 won, in the case of the collision between the defendant vehicle and the defendant vehicle, who had been in a speed of about 24 km/h at a speed of about 24 km/h.

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle had already entered the intersection and was in a scambly non-protection unit, despite the fact that the defendant's vehicle had not fulfilled his duty of bruptism and the duty of avoidance, etc., and the accident of this case occurred, and thus, the defendant's vehicle's fault or negligence is much larger than that of the defendant's vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the total negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle, which caused the plaintiff's vehicle to enter the intersection without using direction direction light while witnessing the defendant's vehicle in which the plaintiff's vehicle is directly driven.

B. Determination 1) The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account all the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, are that the Defendant’s vehicle, who is directly engaged in the road adjacent to the non-protective Zone, did not see the movement of the Defendant vehicle and did not turn on the direction light. On the other hand, the Defendant’s vehicle, while the Defendant’s vehicle was straighted in accordance with the new name, was already entering the intersection and left left to the left at the intersection. Nevertheless, the Defendant’s vehicle neglected to perform the duty of front watch on the Plaintiff’s vehicle, thereby affecting the back portion of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle exceeds the speed limit (60km/h).