1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered to be additionally paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. Around 18:35 on July 13, 2019, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and passed the intersection between the amamamo-ro 11 and the redistribution road in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and the left side part of the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection was shocked to the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left side.

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

By August 28, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 945,000 won for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (200,000 won for self-payment) as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 5, 6 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 2 to 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the right to indemnity

A. The following circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned basic facts: (i) at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was passing through the intersection, which is the place where the accident occurred, and the left side of the intersection is limited to the access road, and it is difficult for the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, to expect that the vehicle will enter the intersection and cross the intersection. (ii) The Defendant’s vehicle seeking to enter the intersection from one-way traffic prohibited from entering the intersection to the intersection by checking the movement of the vehicle normally passing through the intersection under the direction, and neglected to enter the intersection after checking the safety of the direction; and (iii) the Defendant’s vehicle, as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, could find the Defendant’s vehicle entering the intersection and going through the intersection.