1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor is the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Plaintiff is the insurer who concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant is the Financial Cooperative which concluded the automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On June 6, 2017, around 15:30, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle stopped to make a right-hand back from the front side of the Songpa-gu Han Bank, Songpa-gu, Seoul, to the right-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and stopped, while the Defendant’s vehicle moved to the right-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle, the front side of the Plaintiff’s driver’

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 11,710,000 as insurance money for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident was caused by the previous negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, which caused the shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle for the purpose of bypassing due to the Defendant’s failure to exhaust the Plaintiff’s vehicle before the front line, the front line, and the violation of the duty of safe driving. Therefore, the Defendant’s vehicle should pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 11,710,000 for reimbursement for the damages incurred from the instant accident. (ii) The Defendant’s vehicle is obliged to narrow the intersection due to the situation in which the right line is going behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle before the right line; (iii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle is entering the front line without sufficiently examining the Defendant’s vehicle waiting at the right line; (iv) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was deprived of the Defendant’s vehicle attached to the front line; and (v) the Defendant’s vehicle could not confirm the entry of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as soon as possible; and (v) the Plaintiff’s vehicle could not be anticipated to enter the right line.