1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On July 19, 2018, at around 16:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle contacted the Defendant’s vehicle, which was located on the right side in front of the F association located in Sinnam-gun, and was in contact with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was located on the right side, and the front part of the Plaintiff’s driving seat and the front part of the Defendant’s driving seat conflict (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff, based on an insurance contract for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 258,700 to the Plaintiff’s driver for the repair cost related to the instant accident.

(Exclusion of Self-Payment 200,000 won). [Reasons for Recognition] / [Ground for Recognition] A, entry of Evidence Nos. 1 through 8, of Evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle was caused exclusively by the negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle while waiting for temporary stop in order to pass through the intersection of this case, and the accident of this case occurred.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in the right line at the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant’s vehicle was in the right line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The main cause of the instant accident is that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in the right line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and that the fault of the Plaintiff’s vehicle related to the instant accident is at least 70%, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and video, the plaintiff's vehicle was in existence at the intersection of this case, and the defendant's vehicle was in fact in fact, and it was in fact.