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 concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 2, 2019, around 19:56, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was stopped by leaving the left turn turn at the first lane near the Busan Songdong Man-dong Multi-do Danpool Station. However, the Defendant’s vehicle was closely adhered to the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter the second lane.

After the locking, the Plaintiff’s vehicle started according to the left turn signal, and the right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle fell against the left-hand side part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On August 28, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,638,400 as insurance money after deducting KRW 200,000 of the insured’s self-charges from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, 8, 9 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5 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 evidence cited in the basic facts, namely, ① the Defendant vehicle appears to be close close to the Plaintiff vehicle to enter a two-lane, the right-hand left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-on from the two-lane, by disregarding the straight-on signal, and making a part of the one-lane, which appears to have a direct cause for the instant accident. ② The Plaintiff vehicle starts from the first lane at the time of the instant accident to the right-hand side, but it does not deviate from the first lane. ③ At that time, the Plaintiff vehicle’s driver is located in the blind zone in the front side of the front side, and the existence and location of the Defendant vehicle is correct.