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.

1. At the time of the instant accident, at around 18:57 on April 18, 2019, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of the instant accident: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of the instant accident involving the insurance vehicle CD temporarily at the two places, left the two lanes from the G cafeterias of the G cafeterias of the G cafeterias of the G cafeterias of the G cafeterias of the G cafeterias of the G cafeterias of the vehicle, and is proceeding to the above distance crossing. However, the Defendant’s vehicle was at the seat of the G cafeterias of the G cafeterias of the G cafeterias of the vehicle, while making a left-hand turn to the right-hand left-hand left-hand left-hand part of the upper right-hand fences of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle’s payment amount of insurance money of KRW 16,275,000 (the Plaintiff’s vehicle repair cost), total repair cost of KRW 16,775,000, excluding self-paid charges, etc.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the facts acknowledged prior to the negligence ratio, and the following circumstances revealed by the aforementioned evidence, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver as 20%: 80%.

① The driver of a vehicle who makes a left turn to the left at the intersection where it is permitted to make a left turn at the seat of a high-Eup area at the seat of a Gcafeteria, which is the place where the instant accident occurred, is located. However, the driver of a vehicle who makes a left turn at the intersection where it is permitted to make a left turn at the left turn at the right level so that the vehicle from the opposite side does not interfere with the vehicle. In addition, the driver of a vehicle who makes a left turn to the left turn is specified

B. See serial No. 329, at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was straight from the F apartment room to the G cafeteria and was going to the G cafeteria under the new code, and thus, the Defendant’s driver was obliged to turn to the left safely so as not to obstruct the progress of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the priority.