1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The following are the developments leading up to the accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On December 27, 2018, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff related to the insurance (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), Defendant Insured Vehicle D (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle D”) at the time of the accident, around December 27, 2018, the part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was the front part of the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was making the right-hand while the vehicle was on the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was the collision, is 1,98,120 won for the amount of the insurance money paid and KRW 49,000 for self-paid

B. On January 25, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,998,120, excluding KRW 499,000, for the damages, such as the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost, as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is that the Plaintiff’s vehicle is an ordinary intern on the U.S. signal, and the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked with the front string of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while bypassing the vehicle, and thus, the instant accident was caused by the previous negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and that the Plaintiff’s claim for the full amount of the insurance

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that there was negligence not only on the part of the Defendant’s driver, but also on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver, such as making the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver’s physical training.

B. The following circumstances are that (1) the right to indemnity may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the evidence and images as seen earlier, namely, ① the place where the instant accident occurred is adjacent to the intersection, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was using a U-turn according to the U-turn signal. The Defendant’s vehicle was caused by shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle while bypassing the right to indemnity, and ② the location of the instant accident is the U-turn near the crosswalk. In light of the fact that the instant accident is the U-turn located near the crosswalk, the instant accident is the Plaintiff.