1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. In fact, the Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles owned by the Plaintiff Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

On July 3, 2016, 13:30, the Defendant’s vehicle was driving the three-lane of the three-lane of X-gu Daejeon War 107 Daejeon Confection Center in front of the Daejeon K-gu World War 107, with a sign of the right to the left to the left to the left to the left to the right to the right to the left to the right to the right to the left to the right to the right to the right to the right to the left to the right to the right to the right to the right to the left at the right to the right to the left of the Defendant vehicle, and the front left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was directly located two-lane

On August 5, 2016, with respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,710,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9 through 11 (including branch numbers in the case of provisional evidence), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire oral argument as seen above, namely, the driver of the Defendant vehicle temporarily stops prior to the left-hand turn at the right-hand turn and conflicts with the Plaintiff vehicle that was placed on the opposite lane by neglecting it, while neglecting it, and the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle could have known that the opposite vehicle was making a left-hand turn at the intersection at the right-hand turn at the right-hand turn at the right-hand turn at the right-hand speed, and thus, the accident in this case should have been safely entered the intersection by means of reducing speed, etc., in light of the above circumstances, the accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle driver who violated the safety driving duty and the Defendant vehicle driver who violated the method of passage along the intersection. In light of the above circumstances of the accident, the negligence ratio was 10% on the part of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.