1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the B-learning car (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the A-rocketing car (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s automobile”).

B. On March 28, 2013, around 07:16, the Defendant’s vehicle conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle located in the opposite direction to the same path while leaving the white village village in the Yungdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (2314).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,401,200 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's driver of the plaintiff's vehicle stops at the right side of the defendant's vehicle while the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle stops at the right side, but the two vehicles conflict on the wind that the driver of the defendant's vehicle drives beyond the center line, so the accident of this case was caused by the whole negligence on the part of the defendant's side, while the defendant asserts that there was some negligence on the part of the driver

3. In full view of the reasoning of the evidence duly admitted, the Defendant’s driver is driving a road while driving the road.

원고측 차량과 충돌한 사실, 한편 원고측 차량은 피고측 차량을 발견한 후 보도와의 사이에 상당한 거리를 둔 채 정차한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 이 사건 사고는 가상의 중앙선을 현저히 침범한 채 운행한 피고측 차량 운전자의 과실을 직접적인 원인으로 하여 발생하였으나, 피고측 차량을 발견한 원고측 차량 운전자에게도 차를 우측 가장자리로 바짝 붙이고 경음기를 울리거나 전조등을 깜박거려 경고함으로써...