1. Of the judgment of the first instance, KRW 1,204,584 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from March 17, 2017 to December 6, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On November 8, 2016, around 00:10 on November 8, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle collisioned with the Defendant’s vehicle passing over at the time while making a left turn at the private-distance intersection where no signal, etc. is given to the nearest area of the F Pharmacy in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the Defendant’s vehicle conflicts with the electric poles located in the above intersection.

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

By March 16, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,843,089, totaling KRW 566,080, totaling 2,409,169, for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, and for the medical expenses of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 8 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As the instant accident occurred at the wind to overtake the Plaintiff’s vehicle beyond the central line even though the Plaintiff’s alleged driver tried to turn to the left at the said intersection, the instant accident entirely occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

B. The Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence is 80% since the instant accident occurred, which conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle that had been normally driven at one-lane from the wind where the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was under the Defendant’s argument stopping, voluntarily left the left.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., ① in the event of a change of course, should be examined as to whether the change of course could interfere with the normal passage of the vehicle in the direction of the change (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act), but the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle neglected to do so and left the left, and ② in the case of overtaking.