1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Grounds for claim;

A. On January 21, 2013, the driver of the vehicle B (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) did not see the vehicle C, which was driven on the second line due to the negligence of neglecting the duty of the front line while the driver was on the left-hand left-hand turn, and did not change the left-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle into the front part of the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle.

B. As a result, the Plaintiff spent KRW 1,020,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The Plaintiff spent KRW 1,314,740 for medical expenses due to disabilities such as revolving revolving revolving and cryption, etc., and suffered emotional distress.

C. Therefore, the Defendant, as an insurer of Defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the 12,334,740 won in total as damages (i.e., repair cost of KRW 1,020,000 for medical expenses of KRW 1,314,740 for repair cost of KRW 10,000 for consolation money).

2. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 10:00 on January 21, 2013, the Defendant’s vehicle was straighted from the first line in the direction of the passenger flag, the front line of the Seoul Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government D in the direction of the passenger flag in the middle-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City.

B. The Plaintiff, who was driven at the second line in the same direction, was the first line in the intersection, and had the rear wheels of the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while changing the fleet into the first line in the intersection.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The place where the accident of this case occurred shall be the two lanes, the four lanes from each other, and the first lane road shall be the non-protective left-hand turn in the front of the intersection, and there is a sign of non-protective left-hand turn along with a three-dimensional signal in front of the intersection, and the second lane road shall bear a straight and right-hand turn mark.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, each entry of evidence Nos. 9 through 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Since the first lane that the Defendant’s vehicle is proceeding is a non-protected left-hand turn, it is not deemed that the Defendant’s vehicle was negligent on the ground that the vehicle was left-hand in the given lane.

Rather, the instant accident was caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence, which neglected the duty of prior care while changing course at the intersection.