1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around May 19, 2016, the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding in the same direction as the two-lane is attempting bypassing the four-lanes of the four-lanes in front of the Homeplus in Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul.

Plaintiff

The side part of the driver's seat of the vehicle was shocked by the chief side of the defendant's vehicle.

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

On June 27, 2016, with respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,785,000, excluding KRW 200,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 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 in this case occurred due to the shock of the plaintiff's vehicle driving at the fourth-lane while the defendant's vehicle was driving at the two-lanes in the intersection. Thus, the defendant is obligated to claim the full amount of the plaintiff's insurance money.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred because the plaintiff's vehicle driving in the three-lanes entered the intersection at a rapid speed while changing its course to a four-lane and discovered the defendant's vehicle, and as such, the failure to stop or yield it, and that the negligence ratio in violation of the duty to stop and stop on the front of the plaintiff's vehicle as above reaches 50%.

B. In light of the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s vehicle enters the intersection of the instant accident site, while there is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s rolling stock had a negligence due to any driving. However, according to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s vehicle enters the intersection of the instant accident site according to the direct margin signals.