1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (Security Details: Personal Compensation I, Personal Compensation II, Personal Compensation II, Personal Safety Accident, Non-Bodily Injury, Self-Bodily Injury, and Emergency Transfer Clause) with respect to the C Vehicle owned by Nonparty B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and entered into a special agreement with Nonparty B, and entered into a family limited driving agreement as a matter of the special agreement.

The Defendant entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (the content of security: personal injury I, personal injury II, personal injury, etc.) with respect to the E vehicles owned by Nonparty D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 00:50 on March 22, 2015, the Plaintiff Company B driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and moved the new endway in the new endway in the Dong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu into four-lanes from the Asan-si. However, the F, who obtained D’s license for use, driven the Defendant vehicle and proceeded to turn to the left from the Asan-si at the same time and at the same time at the same time as the Defendant vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s front left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the above intersection, and there was an accident that shocks the Defendant’s front left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the right side of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". (c)

On June 23, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,424,610 as insurance money to A according to a family limited driving agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence 1 to 6, 8 through 10, Gap's evidence 1 to 3, Eul's evidence 1 to 4, Eul's witness G's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s violation of signalling, and the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not have committed any violation of signalling, and that the Plaintiff’s driver was negligent.

3. Determination

A. F, who is the driver of the Defendant vehicle, was indicted for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents due to the instant accident, but was acquitted on the ground that the F’s violation of the F’s signal was not proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and the Daejeon District Court’s astronomical support was supported