1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A private taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 8, 2015, around 15:30 on June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle left the left-hand turn from the private road located in the area of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s left-hand turn at the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven from the private road to the private school located in the private school located in Seocho-gu, Seoul, and proceeded with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was driven from the private road to the private school

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

On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,798,00 as repair expenses.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 8 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1 to 3, or 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 main negligence of the defendant's vehicle that did not see that the plaintiff's vehicle is leaving the intersection late later, and that the negligence ratio reaches 80%, and the defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle that entered the intersection in an unreasonable way even though it can be reasonably anticipated that the accident will stop at the intersection by the body of the vehicle, and that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant's vehicle that proceeded in accordance with the straight line.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the images in the evidence evidence No. 4 evidence No. 4, the distance in this area is five lanes excluding bus exclusive lanes, and the first and the second lanes is the exclusive lane for left-hand turn. The Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection by the front line, which is the left-hand turn signal while the signal signal is sent from the third level before the second degree, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle enters the intersection in accordance with the previous new subparagraph.