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. Basic facts

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

B. At around 07:30 on October 11, 2014, C was involved in an accident that conflicts with the front part of the Defendant vehicle, which was proceeding at a speed of about 20 km at a speed of about the speed of 20 km at the speed of the Si’s speed, depending on the road that was connected at the entrance of the mouth at the slope of the entrance of the mouth, after entering the front part of the front part of the Defendant vehicle at a speed of 0 km from the right edge of the Plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. By November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,611,400 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 through 7 (including each number in case of additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle owner, who neglected the front-way driver and attempted to pass an intersection under the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle at the intersection, which is the point where the accident occurred, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection. As such, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff was liable to claim the full amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the Defendant at the time of the instant accident, was at fault, because the Plaintiff’s driver did not temporarily stop in the long-distance distance from the signal light, and the negligence of the Defendant’s driver did not exceed 70%.

B. In the event of a motor vehicle having entered the intersection, the other driver should not obstruct the passage of the motor vehicle, and the other driver first enters the intersection, except in extenuating circumstances.