1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, Defendant Eastern Fire and Marine Insurance corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a comprehensive automobile mutual aid agreement with respect to Asi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and Defendant Eastern Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile mutual aid agreement with respect to B automobiles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On October 9, 2013, around 07:48, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven by the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle driving the instant intersection on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the instant intersection along the green signal from the high speed terminal to the front side of the road.

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

The Defendant’s vehicle, prior to the instant accident, proceeded into the instant intersection by means of distribution and fire-fighting, and entered the instant intersection. At the time, the Defendant’s front-side signal apparatus (hereinafter “signal apparatus”) was in a state of red lights and green lights simultaneously due to malfunction.

On January 13, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,950,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, of Gap's evidence 1 to 5, 8 through 14

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred because it was possible to know the breakdown of the signal apparatus of this case prior to the crossing, so the situation of traffic was driven or temporarily stopped, and after ascertaining the situation of traffic, it should have been entered the intersection without any measures, it should be said that the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who entered the intersection of this case and the defect in the installation or management of the signal apparatus of this case had occurred concurrently without any action. The driver of the plaintiff vehicle who was passing the intersection in accordance with normal signals did not bear any negligence, and therefore, the driver