1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2, 2019, around 18:50, the instant accident took place between the Plaintiff’s vehicle (C) and the Defendant’s vehicle (D) at the Intersection of Taepyeong-dong, Taepyeong-dong, Daejeon. The form of the place where the accident took place is as follows.

Plaintiff

A vehicle passes through the intersection in accordance with the straight and left turn signals at one lane before reaching the intersection, and the defendant vehicle runs towards the direction ① in two lanes, while driving the vehicle in the direction, the front part of the plaintiff vehicle and the left side of the defendant vehicle are facing.

B. On March 7, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 607,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (=total repair cost of KRW 807,000 – KRW 200,000) in accordance with the special agreement for securing self-vehicle damage.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-7, Eul evidence Nos. 1-4, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a) On the first-lane floor where the plaintiff's vehicle was located before entering the intersection of the fault ratio ratio, the straight and left turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn, and the straight turn turn turn turn turn turn turn turn to the direction.

In addition, on the second-lane floor where the Defendant had the two-lanes, there are two-lanes signs, and the straightway refers to the second direction and the third direction.

Plaintiff

On the other hand, the defendant's vehicle was trying to turn to the left in the direction at the two-lanes where it is impossible to turn to the left in accordance with the straight and turn to the left at the same time, and the fact inquiry by the court of Daejeon sent a reply to the purport that the defendant's vehicle is not prohibited from driving in the direction on the two-lanes on the premise that there is no surface sign at the place where the original defendant was a vehicle before entering the intersection.

However, according to the video of Gap evidence No. 5, it is confirmed that there are surface signs as seen above, so the defendant's vehicle is prohibited from being driven in the direction one way from two lanes of the above fact-finding.