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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on the DNA (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 13:00 on November 15, 2017, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driving the Defendant vehicle and driving the Defendant vehicle on a one-lane near the F apartment in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and making a left turn to the left at the private distance prior to the Non-Protection Zone. The Plaintiff’s vehicle driving by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, who was driving the bicycle-only road on the left side of the driving direction of the Defendant vehicle at the time, was straighted, and the front part of the Defendant vehicle was shocked with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

The Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for deliberation and mediation of the dispute over the reimbursement of automobile insurance (hereinafter referred to as the “Deliberation Committee”) in accordance with the mutual agreement on the deliberation of the dispute over the reimbursement of automobile insurance, and on March 19, 2018, the Deliberation Committee rendered a deliberation and resolution (hereinafter referred to as the “deliberation decision of this case”) on the ground that “the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s violation of the main lane of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the unreasonable overtaking driving.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,452,00 to the Defendant on April 11, 2018 according to the instant deliberation and conciliation decision, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit against the instant deliberation and conciliation decision.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff and the defendant vehicle driver at the time of the plaintiff's intervenor did not take measures such as operating direction direction, etc.