1. The Defendant’s KRW 56,918,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 31, 2016 to May 21, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s electric and B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On August 20, 2016, around 15:23, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle: (a) while the Defendant was driving the Defendant’s vehicle on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and entered the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged due to the shocking side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while the Defendant was driving the Defendant vehicle in the direction of lux loan in the white direction along one lane.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 56,918,00 on the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the electricity company of Korea.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings are as follows: (a) the Defendant did not look at whether there was a direct vehicle entering the three streets of this case, and seems not to have reduced the speed; (b) according to the video of the evidence evidence No. 2, the Defendant’s vehicle sought to turn to the left from the three streets of this case; (c) however, in light of the shock point and the shock level of both vehicles at the time of the accident, the Defendant’s vehicle, which proceeded to the three streets of this case and proceeded to the left as nearly straight at the time of the accident (the above images show that, according to the above images, it was difficult to see that the Defendant was trying to turn to the left to the left, it was unlikely to operate the hand on the left side while entering the three streets of this case to the extent that it was difficult to see that the Defendant was trying to turn to the left, and if it did not match with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, it seems that the Defendant’s vehicle fell beyond the roadway of this case.