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

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant and the incidental costs of appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 10:55 on May 22, 2015, when driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and making a left-hand turn to the unprotected left-hand turn from the view square in front of the e-distance intersection located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, C met the part of the front-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly controlled pursuant to the new subparagraph, from the view of the e-road surface to the view square in front of the view square in front of the e-distance intersection in the city of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, which led to the e-section 2.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On June 16, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 35,180,000 as the repair cost for Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that when the plaintiff's vehicle entered the right-hand turn at the above intersection, the defendant's vehicle neglected the duty of front-time care and caused the plaintiff's vehicle to shock, and contributed to the accident in this case at least 30% of the negligence ratio of the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 10,54,000 won, which is equivalent to 30% of the negligence ratio of the defendant's vehicle, out of the above insurance money 35,180,000 won, and delay damages therefor.

In this regard, the defendant met the defendant's vehicle that the plaintiff's vehicle runs along the four-lanes of the 6-lane road, which is a straight line, while making a non-protective left turn in the form of changing the course to the left-hand side in the intersection and driving normally in accordance with the straight line. The accident of this case is the above plaintiff's vehicle crossing method and the method of changing the course.