1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

2. At around 13:00 on August 11, 2014, in the vicinity of Shak-dong Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 11, 2014, at around 13:00 on August 11, 2014, C driven by the Party A, which entered into an automobile insurance with the Plaintiff, and proceeded along three-lanes along the three-lanes in the intersection near Shandk, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, along the two-lanes, while changing the two-lanes, C compared to the front part of the Defendant’s D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) that was proceeding for the internship at the end of U.S. due to the U.S. signal, the front part of the U.S. vehicle was shocked into the left part of the Plaintiff’s U.S. vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Due to the instant accident, the Defendant paid KRW 1,752,00 for the repair cost for the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4, Eul evidence 2, the result of the verification by the court of the first instance, the fact inquiry by the Daejeon Police Station of the court of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the collision between the defendant's vehicle, which was the plaintiff's vehicle that was the plaintiff's vehicle that was in the direct progress, and therefore the defendant's negligence falls under 90%, and the defendant suffered a loss equivalent to KRW 1,970,000, and therefore, the plaintiff's obligation to pay the insurance money to the defendant in relation to the accident in this case does not exceed KRW 197,00.

B. The defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred in the course of making a right-hand turn excessively, and that the defendant's vehicle received a left-hand turn signal from the U-turn area and made a U-turn within the signal range permitted by the U.S., so there is no negligence on the defendant's vehicle

3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence evidence Nos. 1 to 4, evidence Nos. 1 to 4, evidence No. 1 to 4, the result of the verification by the court of first instance, and the overall purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the negligence of the Plaintiff Oral Ba is 60%, and the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle

C makes a right-hand turn to the intersection by driving the plaintiff's Lao, and then makes a right-hand.