1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is a mutual aid insurer who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”) including the time when the driver is named.

B. On November 3, 2018, around 12:21, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle straighted a sloping road located in the Seosung-gu Daejeon, Daejeon, along one-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes, and continued to enter the instant intersection by reporting that green signal turn on the direction of the Plaintiff’s proceeding at the intersection (hereinafter “instant intersection”).

However, at the same time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the instant intersection, almost at the same time, and the Defendant vehicle entered the instant intersection while making a left-hand turn on the right-hand side (the instant intersection did not have a signal apparatus on the running direction of the Defendant vehicle). Accordingly, there was an accident where the entire part of the Plaintiff vehicle and the left-hand side of the Defendant vehicle conflict (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On November 13, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 253,900,00, except for the amount of KRW 200,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry or video of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle had entered the instant intersection in a normal manner according to the straight signal, and it could not be seen that the Defendant’s vehicle entered the instant intersection in the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, there was no negligence on the Plaintiff’s vehicle

Although the intersection of this case is an intersection with a priority to a straight-line vehicle, the defendant vehicle entered the intersection of this case for left-hand turn without the concession of the intersection of this case at the same time.