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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. At around 14:50 on December 9, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at an intersection with no signal apparatus near the Damart located in leisure C (hereinafter “instant intersection”) and working directly on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who opened the instant intersection from the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the instant intersection, shocked the part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s driver’s seat and the penter and the

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On December 22, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,971,600 to the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The party's assertion (1) The vehicular road of the Plaintiff's vehicle is larger than the Defendant's vehicular road, and the Defendant's vehicle driver should yield the course to the Plaintiff's vehicle while driving slowly.

Nevertheless, the driver of the defendant vehicle left at a rapid speed on a narrow road, and the accident in this case occurred, and the fault ratio of the driver of the defendant vehicle in this case is about 80%.

Therefore, the Defendant, who is the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay as indemnity the amount of KRW 2,377,280 out of the above repair cost paid by the Plaintiff to the owner of the Plaintiff vehicle (=2,971,600 x 80%).

(2) The width of the Plaintiff’s vehicular road and the Defendant’s vehicular road is not much different, and the Plaintiff’s driver should yield the course to the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the right side of the direction of the proceeding, but the instant accident occurred as the Plaintiff’s driver is while the Plaintiff’s driver is in the position.