1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

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 an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On December 21, 2018, at around 18:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, in front of the F Authorized Agent E located in Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “instant intersection”) was an accident in which the collision between the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle driven in the direction of J in the direction of H childcare center from the direction of G Authorized Agent, and the rear part of the right part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(c)

The speed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately before the instant accident was 0 to 20km, and the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle was 21 to 30km. The Defendant’s driver, who was the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, was aware of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that first entered the instant intersection at the investigative agency, and was directly engaged in the Defendant’s fault, as it was, in order to recognize and stop the Plaintiff’s vehicle that first entered the instant intersection.

(d)

The Plaintiff deducted KRW 500,000 from the insurance money related to the damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the insured of the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 5,130,300 on January 10, 2019, and the sum of KRW 5,007,700 on February 1, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, in proceeding to the intersection of this case where there is another vehicle that first entered the intersection in which there is no signal, etc., while driving the Defendant vehicle, and if there were other vehicles having entered the intersection of this case, the vehicle that first entered the intersection of this case would have been safe by looking at any extent in the progress situation, but rather, the Plaintiff’s vehicle that first entered the intersection of this case rather than the Defendant vehicle.