From July 6, 2019 to December 10, 2020, the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff 5,030 won and its related amount.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

B. Around 18:40 on June 20, 2019, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle moved by right at the intersection located in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, to the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle that was bypassed from the front bank, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was overtaken by the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle’s driver’s seat (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

C. On July 5, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,075,150,000, excluding KRW 200,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, each entry and video of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the traffic accident in this case is an accident that caused the shock of the plaintiff's vehicle that the defendant's vehicle had been driven in violation of the duty to stop on the front line, and thus, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,075,150 to the plaintiff with the insurance money. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the traffic accident in this case is an accident that the plaintiff's vehicle was driven in the right line, and thus, it should be viewed as the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle.

B. (1) According to the fact of recognition of the liability for damages, the instant traffic accident caused the concurrence between the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was trying to overtake the Defendant’s vehicle that was going on the front side by neglecting the duty of safe driving, and neglecting the duty of safe driving, and thereby, caused the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, which shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle while going through the said intersection, by neglecting the duty of safe driving.

(2) the percentage of fault; and