1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to AS5 automobiles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B buses (hereinafter “Defendants”).

B. At around 12:03 on November 29, 2012, C, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the part of the Plaintiff on the part of the Plaintiff, with two lanes from the area of the discharge room where the death and death distance of the Plaintiff was killed, which was located on the part of the Suwon-si Suwon-si (U.S.) to the original air basin, was in conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle on the part of the Defendant, which was left left to the left at the seat of the original air basin (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the distance of the death and death of the Plaintiff is installed with signal apparatus.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,060,000 as insurance money for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle driver on the part of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the full amount equivalent to the repair cost.

3. According to the overall purport of each film and pleading evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the defendant's vehicle stopped on the stop line and waiting to change the signal to the left turn signals from the right straight line, and thereafter, the defendant's vehicle entered the intersection, and the defendant's vehicle entered the intersection, and after approximately two seconds have passed from that point, the plaintiff's vehicle runs down beyond the stop line at a rapid speed and the stop line. As long as it is obvious that the driver of the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff violated the signal while the driver of the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff violated the signal, the accident in this case occurred due to negligence on the part of the plaintiff on the front side.

And after the signal has been changed to the driver of the vehicle on the defendant side, another vehicle is new in violation of the signal.