1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, including the claim expanded and reduced in this court, is as follows.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the driver of D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On July 24, 2017, at around 17:40, the Defendant re-afford the vehicle E (hereinafter referred to as “victimd vehicle”) signaled after shocking the left front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the middle of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lane left left at the intersection where no signal signal was sent near the Seodaemun-dong, Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

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

In this process, the plaintiff vehicle, the defendant vehicle, and the damaged vehicle were damaged, and the F, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, G, the passenger of the plaintiff vehicle, and H, the driver of the damaged vehicle.

By March 11, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,09,60,00, including the repair cost of the damaged vehicle (i.e., KRW 1,449,800 for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle) (i.e., KRW 6,495,00 for the H treatment cost of KRW 1,827,40 for the expenses incurred in the repair of the damaged vehicle, and KRW 2,500 for the expenses incurred in G treatment of KRW 2,50,00 for the 2,50,000 for the agreed amount and KRW 2,50,700 for the expenses incurred in the repair of the Plaintiff vehicle) and KRW 17,775,700 for the expenses incurred in the repair of the Plaintiff vehicle (Deduction KRW 500,00 for self-payment).

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14, 16, 17, and 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The driver of the Defendant’s vehicle who intends to turn to the left at an intersection where traffic is not controlled, based on the following circumstances and the overall purport of the arguments, which are acknowledged based on the above basic facts and the evidence as seen earlier, should yield the course to the Plaintiff’s vehicle going to the intersection (Article 26(4) of the Road Traffic Act). On the other hand, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is also in a situation where the view is restricted due to a vehicle stopped in the direction of the passage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time. Thus, the driver