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 cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 3, 2011, the Defendant driven a C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) on January 10:35, 201, and attempted to make a right-hand turn while driving along the two-lanes adjacent to the Esc-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, the part of the F vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) in front of the front left-hand part of the Defendant vehicle, which was located in the two-lane, was shocked with the front left-hand part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Plaintiff

On January 18, 2011, the Plaintiff, an insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle, paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 3,866,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred from the whole negligence of the defendant's vehicle that attempted to make a right-hand, and the defendant asserts that the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle, which was an illegal parking, should also be considered in the second way.

B. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops at the time of the instant accident; (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have started driving at the time of the instant accident; and (c) the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have started driving at the time of the instant accident, considering the shock level of the Defendant’s vehicle when considering the shock level, the instant accident is recognized to have occurred by the Defendant’s fault and the Defendant’s fault of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver who stopped on a two-lane and neglected the duty of front-lane while driving at the same time; and (d) the Defendant’s fault was recognized to have occurred by the Defendant who failed to properly take into account the situation of driving the two-lane vehicle while driving at the first lane. In full view of the background and degree of the instant accident as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s driver.