1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

사고 당시 보험관계 원고 피보험차량 피고 피보험차량 A B 일시 2017. 7. 4. 21:38 장소 용인시 수지구 상현동 만연마을 소재 쌍용1차 아파트 단지 내 노상 충돌상황 원고 차량이 위 장소 ‘ㅏ’자형 삼거리 교차로에서 우회전을 시도하는데, 피고 차량이 원고 차량 진행방향 기준 우측으로부터 좌회전을 시도하다가 피고 차량 좌측 앞부분으로 원고 차량을 충격하였음. 보험금지급액 2,470,000원 담보 자기차량손해 [인정 근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1 내지 8호증, 을 제1호증의 각 기재 및 영상, 변론 전체의 취지

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred due to the primary negligence of the Defendant’s driver who attempted to turn back the instant vehicle to the center part of the intersection while neglecting the duty of the front line.

B. The Defendant’s vehicle driving along a road with a relatively wide width and entering the intersection is deemed to have the priority for traffic, and the Plaintiff’s driver is negligent in driving the entire road at the center of the road at the time of the instant accident. As such, in calculating the negligence ratio on the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence should be considered in calculating the negligence ratio.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the above basic facts, and each of the above evidence, in particular, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the driver of the defendant vehicle tried to turn to the left at the intersection where the accident occurred, which is the place where the accident in this case occurred, and went to the right at the seat of the road, and went to the right at the seat of the road. However, the driver of the defendant vehicle, while attempting to turn to the right at the intersection where the accident in this case occurred, without temporarily suspending or accelerating the vehicle until before shocking the plaintiff vehicle, can be recognized that the front time of the accident in this case can be considerably restricted.