1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the following amount.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

On August 16, 2018 at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s insured vehicle”) proceeds in one-lanes around the F church located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, along the two-lanes of the above location. The Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of collision with the intersection near the F church located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, was making a left turn on the left side of the left side of the vehicle of the Plaintiff’s front side of the running direction. The insurance amount paid - the insurance amount paid - the sum of KRW 1,043,630, total of the medical expenses for the passengers of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from September 18, 2018 to December 20 of the same year - the payment of KRW 4,901,000 on October 5, 2018 - the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair expense of the insured vehicle, KRW 500,000,00 self-paid loss of the insured vehicle.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, namely, the Plaintiff’s driver attempted to make a right-hand turn or left-hand turn while the signal was red. On the other hand, if the Defendant’s driver enters the left-hand turn on the back road, he is deemed to have neglected his duty of care so as not to obstruct the passage of other vehicles. In light of the background of the accident, collision level, and degree of damage, etc., the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s and the Defendant’s vehicle.

It is reasonable to view that the ratio is 70:30 in light of the above circumstances.

B. The Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle within the scope of the claim for reimbursement, paid the repair cost of the Plaintiff vehicle to the passenger of the Plaintiff vehicle, and fulfilled the obligation to compensate for the damages arising from the said joint tort.