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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with D (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 13:00 on May 29, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle that caused the instant accident entered the front line of the F University located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu into the main line of four lanes in the latitude. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked with the Defendant’s vehicle that was in a straight line of four lanes on the same road.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On June 11, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,730,000 (except for KRW 500,000 of the self-paid premium) as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred as the wind that the driver of the defendant vehicle neglected the duty to stop on the cell phone while the plaintiff's vehicle was almost complete bypassing the cell phone.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the responsibility of the defendant's vehicle should be limited to 50% since the plaintiff's vehicle conflict with the defendant's vehicle in the process of trying to enter the vehicle in an unreasonable manner as soon as possible.

B. In full view of the facts admitted prior to the error ratio and the overall purport of the arguments by each evidence, the following circumstances, namely, ① even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the front line at the time of the instant accident, it appears that the instant accident occurred on the wind that the Defendant’s vehicle failed to perform the duty of the front line due to his failure to perform the duty of the front line (the Defendant also recognized that the Defendant’s driver neglected to perform the duty of the front line), and ② the instant accident.