1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

At the time of the accident, around 08:42 on December 24, 2018 at the time of the accident, the front portion of the Plaintiff’s vehicle located at the intersection in front of the road accident situation in front of the police station in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle that left left to the direction of the progress of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (=5,795,000 won for repair of the Plaintiff’s vehicle - 5,295,000 won for self-paid vehicle - KRW 500,000 for self-paid vehicle - Non-paid vehicle - Non-paid vehicle - on December 1, 2018, there is no dispute over the circumstances of the accident in this case [founded grounds], Gap’s evidence Nos. 1-5, Eul’s evidence No. 1-5, and the purport of the entire pleadings or the purport of oral proceedings as a whole.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the instant accident occurred due to the common negligence of the original Defendant’s driver, and the negligence ratio is reasonable to regard the Plaintiff’s vehicle as 30% and the Defendant’s vehicle as 70%.

① While the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in progress in accordance with the straight line, the Defendant’s vehicle was left left at the intersection where there is no left-hand turn, the main fault in relation to the instant accident is the Defendant’s driver.

② However, even if the Plaintiff’s driver was already aware of the left-hand turn of the Defendant’s vehicle before entering the intersection, the Plaintiff’s fault was found to have been negligent in driving on the front side, thereby leading up to the Defendant’s vehicle. As such, at least 30% of the instant accident was negligent.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for damages equivalent to 70% of the above negligence ratio as his/her employer with respect to the accident of this case caused by the driver of the defendant's vehicle in the course of performing his/her duties, and is obligated to respond to the plaintiff's claim for damages by the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle in subrogation for the defendant pursuant to Article 682

B. The Defendant asserted that, immediately after the instant accident occurred, the Plaintiff’s driver recognized the instant accident by his own gross negligence.