1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered under paragraph (2) shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 17:20 on March 17, 2019, the Defendant’s vehicle was running along the two-lane road of the Plaintiff’s two-lane road in the front and rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was running along the two-lane road in the front and rear part of the two-lane road in the front and rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On April 5, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,437,340 as insurance money after deducting KRW 200,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) the instant accident is an accident in which the Defendant’s vehicle enters a two-lane road from the side road to the three-lane road, and the Defendant’s vehicle immediately enters the two-lane without any direction direction direction, and immediately leaves the two-lane road without any temporary stop, and operates the said two-lane road normally.

Therefore, the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant vehicle, and the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, is the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff as the repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle, 2,437,340 won, and damages for delay.

(2) At the time of the instant accident, the instant accident is clear weather week, and the point of the instant accident does not have any element to obstruct the view of the vehicle by traveling along the three-lane road in the four-lane road, and the Plaintiff’s driver might have been aware of the Defendant’s vehicle seeking a right-hand way from approximately 30 meters prior to the instant accident to the point of view.