1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

The defendant on 318.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C-Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”).

The defendant is a person who drives a D-wheeled vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle") at the time of the following accident.

B. On October 23, 2015, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle was not divided into two lanes near the E intersection in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Sinsan-si, the road was driven in the direction of the Korea Gas Corporation in the one-dong park, and stopped to enter the intersection. The Plaintiff’s vehicle did not avoid the Defendant’s vehicle that was trying to move ahead of the Plaintiff from the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked on the left side of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff spent KRW 398,740,00 in total, including medical expenses of the Defendant, KRW 158,740, and KRW 240,00 in the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as insurance proceeds.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s driver did not have a duty to pay attention to the vehicle’s situation proceeding on the right side, and there was no Defendant’s vehicle at the place where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked.

The instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s secondary driving at an intersection in which overtaking is prohibited, and thus, the responsibility for the instant accident is entirely on the part of the Defendant.

B. Although it is shocked with the Plaintiff’s vehicle that the Defendant’s vehicle started after stopping at a place where the overtaking prohibition is prohibited under Article 22(3) of the Road Traffic Act, given the characteristics of the two-wheeled vehicle, the Plaintiff’s driver should have checked the surrounding circumstances and predicted and operated the access of the Defendant’s vehicle. As such, the Plaintiff’s liability on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is also attributable

3. Determination

A. The above.