1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. On July 18, 2018, at the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff insured vehicle CD at the time of the occurrence of the accident in which the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff insured vehicle was driven at the first left-hand line from the left-hand of the left-hand at the two-lanes of the left-hand turn of the vehicle at the location of the Sihn-dong Forest at the time of Singu-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) and the insured vehicle of the Defendant insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) at the time of the accident in which the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle was driven by the Defendant’s insured vehicle of the Plaintiff’s insurance vehicle of KRW 200,000 on July 27, 2018, the following particulars are as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and thus, the Defendant sought full reimbursement from the Defendant, while the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s driver was negligent in violating the duty of safe distance and safe driving.

B. According to the evidence revealed earlier, while the Defendant’s vehicle left the left at the intersection, it conflicts with the Plaintiff’s left-hand side of the vehicle that left-hand at the right-hand side of the vehicle, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver had a duty of care to prevent accidents in preparation for the case where the vehicle driven at the right-hand side of the vehicle on the side to the driver of the vehicle. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s negligence.

Therefore, it is reasonable for the Defendant, the insurer of the Plaintiff, to resist the existence or scope of the obligation from July 28, 2018, as to KRW 546,00 as the indemnity amount, and KRW 436,80 as cited in the first instance judgment, which was the day following the payment of the insurance money, to the Plaintiff who subrogated the Plaintiff’s claim for damages by the owner of the Plaintiff.