1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Plaintiff

The successor's claim is dismissed.

2. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to AMF5 car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B put-in car (hereinafter “Defendant”), and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor succeeded to the rights and duties under the automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle on November 30, 2015, after the first instance judgment was rendered.

B. On January 19, 2014, at around 20:55, C driven the Defendant’s vehicle and moved back to four-lanes of the flow-distance intersection located in the port-dong, Songcheon-gun, along the four-lane road adjacent to the flow-distance intersection at the port-dong, in order to disregard the temporary suspension line and the concession signs in the front bank and proceed as they are. On the ground of the permanent residence at the intersection of the flow-distance distance, C, after passing through the intersection of the above flow-distance intersection from the bank of the residents’ center at the port-dong, the part on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which entered the right side of the Defendant vehicle at the center of the residents’ center at the port-dong, was shocked with the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The point at which the instant accident occurred is an intersection without a separate signal leading to the passage of the vehicle entering the bank of the residents' center of the dispatching area after passing through the said intersection, and the vehicle entering the center of the residents' center of the dispatching area of the Ycheon-gun with the rooftop distance from the Ycheon-gun bank.

On August 18, 2014, the indemnity payment dispute deliberation committee decided the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle that contributed to the instant accident as 35:65. On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,314,040 to the Defendant on October 29, 2014, the insurance money equivalent to 35% of the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor is the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the intersection of the transmission distance.