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

The defendant.

Basic Facts

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

B. On January 10, 2016, around 11:40, the Plaintiff’s vehicle moved the front signal from the straight line in the middle line of the three-lane Hong-dong Hong-dong red ginseng street located in the fourth-lane, to the red signal and left turn turn turn turn turn turn, and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s right side, the front part of which the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle moved from the first lane of the four-lane to the opposite part, was shocked by the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff paid insurance money equivalent to KRW 10,372,00,000, totaling KRW 9,950,000 on April 27, 2016, and KRW 422,00 on June 3, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 8 (including branch numbers), the video, and the argument of the parties to the whole pleadings

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident is an accident caused by competition between the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was immediately close and the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle is at least 70%, even if the front signal was changed to the red and left turn signal. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 7,260,400 for indemnity amounting to 70% of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff, and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection through a normal non-protection unit. The instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s excessive speed, signal violation, electric watching, and breach of the duty of safety care. Thus, the instant accident is an accident caused by the Plaintiff’s total fault.

Plaintiff

The plaintiff also recognized the fault ratio of the vehicle as 100%.

Judgment

Attached Table 6. Article 8 (2) of the Enforcement Rules of the Road Traffic Act.