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

B. Around 10:30 on July 11, 2015, the Defendant’s driver drivened the Defendant’s vehicle and entered the Defendant’s vehicle from the back road located in the Cheongsung-dong Cheongdong-ro 72-ro, Daegu, bypassing it to the right, and then the Defendant’s driver felled into the part of the Defendant’s license plate after driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the right side of the two-lane road.

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

On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 298,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case is caused by the total negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, because the vehicle of this case was shocked by the driver of this case while the vehicle of this case was driven by the driver of this case in the first way among the two-lane roads.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the driver of the defendant's vehicle driven slowly at the entrance of the direction of the course due to illegal parked vehicles, and that the rate of negligence due to the driver's breach of the duty of safe driving of the plaintiff's driver of the accident in this case reaches 30%.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, the road in the direction of the Plaintiff vehicle is a straight-way road where the front direction was secured, and the Plaintiff’s driver appears to have been able to discover the Defendant vehicle that started to enter the instant intersection in the front direction, and the vehicle was parked on both sides of the Defendant’s driving direction, and the view of the Defendant’s driver was limited. The instant accident is against the Plaintiff’s duty of front-rounding by the Plaintiff’s driver who did not speed up or stop the Plaintiff vehicle.