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

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A at the time of the insured vehicle A at the time of the insured vehicle B at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A at 20:40 on Jan. 15, 2017, written statements and images of No. 1042-ro 1042, as at the time of the collision situation of No. 14-1, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle’s 1,032,030, the amount of damages 1,032,030, the insured vehicle’s 200,000, the self-paid share of the insured vehicle’s self-paid vehicle loss (which is the ground for recognition) did not dispute, the insured vehicle’s 1,2,4 through 10, and Eul’s 1 (including the main number if there are various numbers) and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident solely occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s insured vehicle driver, and that the Plaintiff subrogated the Plaintiff’s claim for damages based on subrogation against the insurer with respect to the damages incurred by the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle C, among the damages caused by the vehicle damage, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident ought to yield the right of way to the straight-on vehicle in the intersection where the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle did not control traffic, but by negligence, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle driver’s negligence exceeds 70%.

In light of the circumstances such as the background of the accident revealed in the above recognition (the fact that the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle appears not to have driven at the rapid speed of all the two vehicles) the collision side (the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle is the front driver in the case of the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s insured vehicle is the driver on the side of the driver’s seat in the case of the Defendant), and the degree of shock, and the circumstances such as the degree of shock, it is difficult to see that the insured vehicle was clearly temporarily suspending the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle before entering the intersection even in the video of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, etc., it is reasonable to 64:

(2) The following: