1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On June 5, 2014, around 20:45, the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding with the Plaintiff’s vehicle moving back from the backhead to the backhead of the new field of response from the backhead of the river in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul. In line with the Plaintiff’s vehicle moving back to the same room from the right side of the proceeding, the Defendant’s vehicle suffered injury by E and F on the part of the Plaintiff.

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

The Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 2,405,80 in total with the medical expenses and the agreed amount of E/F aboard the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred in competition with each other by the negligence of the drivers of both vehicles. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the treatment expenses.

3. In full view of the overall purport of pleadings and arguments, the location where the accident of this case occurred is the point where two roads crossing each other, which are three-lanes of the way, and all signal apparatuses are installed on the two roads, and the vehicle on the part of the defendant is proceeding in accordance with the straight line behind the preceding bus; the vehicle on the part of the defendant can be acknowledged the fact that the vehicle of this case received even the front door of the vehicle on the right side of the defendant; according to the above facts of recognition, it is not believed that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence that the driver of the vehicle of this case tried to circumvent the vehicle of this case without sufficiently considering the situation of the straight line. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence that the driver of the vehicle of this case tried to circumvent the vehicle of this case without considering the situation of the straight line. The driver of the vehicle of this case is the driver of the defendant side who passed the intersection by observing the straight line signal.