1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On October 16, 2015, at around 10:19, the Defendant’s vehicle left the right-hand turn at the right-hand turn of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, among the three-lane roads opposite to the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle, the two-lanes of the Plaintiff’s left-hand turn in the front side of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, where the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the front side of the front side of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, are permitted to proceed along the first two-lane

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

On May 4, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,559,000 as insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 4 and images, fact-finding results on the police station at the court of the corresponding instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. A vehicle that intends to turn to the left in the area prior to the meeting of a non-protective base must turn to the left in a manner that does not obstruct the passage of a straighted vehicle while paying attention to the vehicle from the opposite direction in accordance with the vehicle traffic signal. On the other hand, a vehicle that seeks to turn to the left according to the straight-on signal shall be considered to proceed to the opposite direction, unless the vehicle that intends to turn to the left to the right at the intersection is waiting or the vehicle that is waiting to turn to the left at a sufficient distance and attempts to turn to turn to the left (the principle of trust). This is also the same even if the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act is amended and the driver of the vehicle prior to the non-protective base is not liable for the violation of the signal.

In light of the above, the whole purport of the evidence presented above is as follows.