1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract regarding D-Large Cargo Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) with respect to C-Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff Vehicle”).

나. 원고 차량은 2017. 10. 10. 광주 광산구 E의 ‘ㅏ’자형 삼거리 교차로에서 우회전하던 중 좌회전으로 원고 차량의 진행 도로로 진입하던 피고 차량을 발견하고 정지하였으나, 피고 차량이 좌회전하여 진입하면서 원고 차량의 운전석쪽 앞과 옆 부분과 피고 차량의 운전석 쪽 타이어 부분이 서로 충돌하였다

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The scene of the accident is as follows:

C. On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,576,700 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim 1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was the cause of the Plaintiff, discovered and stopped the Defendant’s vehicle at the intersection, did not fully secure the right-hand turn, and thus, the Defendant’s liability ratio of the Defendant’s driver in relation to the instant accident ought to be 100%. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amounting to KRW 4,576,700 and the damages for delay thereof. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s vehicle had entered the intersection. As the Defendant’s vehicle had gained the right of way to the Defendant’s vehicle pursuant to Article 26 of the Road Traffic Act, it was unreasonable for the Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter the intersection in a situation where the Defendant’s vehicle was found to have discovered the Defendant’s vehicle that was left-hand and left-hand, and thus the instant accident occurred. As such, the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have the responsibility ratio of KRW 20% for the Plaintiff’

B. Each of the above facts of determination 1 and the above facts of recognition.