1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to A-owned B vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C-owned vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicle”).

B. Around 14:05 on October 11, 2014, the Defendant vehicle was taking a U-turn on the front side of Songpa-gu Seoul Songpa-gu Office, Songpa-gu, Seoul. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, following the Defendant vehicle, was proceeding to the left side, and there was an accident that shocks the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle into the front side of the Defendant vehicle.

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

From January 19, 2015 to April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,201,130 in total with regard to the instant accident due to the medical expenses incurred by the passenger of the Defendant vehicle D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In relation to the instant accident, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 480,452 (= KRW 1,201,130 x 40%) equivalent to 40% of the insurance amount paid by the Plaintiff, as well as damages for delay, on the ground that the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to perform his/her duty of safe internship after making a well-known examination as to whether the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle had a vehicle to be

B. It is sufficient for other vehicles to observe traffic regulations and to believe that there is no possibility of obstructing the normal traffic of other vehicles and horses in the zone where the U-turn is permitted, and the driver of the U.S. is believed to take appropriate measures to avoid collision, barring special circumstances, and the driver of the U.S. has no duty of care to drive when the latter vehicle is expected to stop his course while driving a U.S. driver's license.

Therefore, the driver of the defendant vehicle is normally running on the opposite lane of his driving direction.