1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Vehicle”) including the time when the Plaintiff refers to the driver, and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Vehicle”) including the time when the driver is named.

B. On March 6, 2019, at around 14:07, the Plaintiff’s vehicle passed through an intersection with no nearby signal lights, etc. (hereinafter “instant intersection”), the Plaintiff’s right side of the vehicle was straighted from the F Elementary School to the G Corporation, and the Defendant’s vehicle passing through the instant intersection (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. Due to the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle accepted the parts of the left-hand fluorg, left-hand fluor, left-hand fluor, left-hand fluor, the left-hand fluor, and the left-hand fluor panel, etc. on March 28, 2019, the Defendant paid KRW 1,285,000, excluding the insured’s self-paid cost at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

A mutual agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the deliberation of a dispute over the rate of fault in automobile accident (hereinafter “instant agreement”) is concluded.

Based on the instant agreement, the Defendant filed a request for deliberation on the instant accident with the Plaintiff as the respondent at the deliberation committee on the disputes over automobile insurance (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”), and the Deliberation Committee made a request for deliberation on the instant accident on September 9, 2019, when considering that the instant accident occurred in the course of deliberation held on September 9, 2019, the Defendant’s vehicle was driving on the right-hand side of the center line, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving on the left-hand side without the center line, and the Defendant’s vehicle was driving on the left-hand side without the center line, the Defendant’s preferential right to passage on the vehicle is deemed to exist, and the data submitted up to the present date alone exceeds the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.