1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of additional payment shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the insurer of C vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”) including its driver, and the Defendant is the insurer of D vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) including its driver.

B. On September 23, 2019, at around 16:16, the Defendant vehicle attempted to turn to the left slowly according to one-lane of the two-lanes where green signal lights turn on the intersection in the vicinity of the Frant E (hereinafter “instant intersection”).

C. In this case, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along a one-lane from the opposite direction to the Defendant’s vehicle, the vehicle was in the vicinity of the instant intersection, and was straighted by changing the two-lane at a rapid speed for overtaking the front vehicle in the same direction, and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflicts with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle where the left part is left left.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

The Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed due to the instant accident, and until October 2, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 4,380,000, which deducts KRW 200,000 from the total amount of damages as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the total amount of KRW 4,580,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, 8, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers) or the purport of the whole video and pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred from the total negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, but as seen later, the instant accident occurred between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle’s negligence, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

B. According to the aforementioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, the instant accident was already in the process of left-hand turn before the Plaintiff’s vehicle enters the instant intersection, and thus, if the Defendant’s vehicle is making a left-hand turn, the Defendant’s vehicle, which was making a left-hand turn, could be sufficiently recognized.