Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering additional payment shall be revoked.

The defendant 1.1.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with CS-type vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-type vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with DD-type vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant-type vehicle”).

B. On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the right side of the road where the Defendant’s vehicle was parked on the left side of the intersection near the Gangseo-si, Yung-si, and stopped to turn to the left.

At that moment, the Defendant’s vehicle was at the right end and the front and side of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat were shocked (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. From March 30, 2018 to April 3, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,313,000, excluding the Plaintiff’s own share as repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident was stopped on the left-hand side of the road in violation of the method of road traffic, but the Plaintiff’s failure to discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle and caused the Defendant’s fault by the vehicle’s transfer to the Defendant’s driver bypassing the crossing, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 4,313,00 and the damages for delay pursuant to Article 682(1) of the Commercial

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred concurrently between the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver of the vehicle who did not discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the right-hand and the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who did not discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the right-hand and the fault ratio of the Defendant’s driver should be 70%. As such, the Defendant is liable for reimbursement exceeding the above fault ratio to the Plaintiff.