1. The decision of the first instance against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount below shall be cancelled; and

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to a motor vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a mutual aid contract with respect to B cab (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On October 23, 2013, the Defendant vehicle passed the intersection in which yellow dust, etc. in the vicinity of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul is on and off to the left-hand turn at the new village. While the vehicle passes through the left-hand turn at the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle, the lower part of the Plaintiff vehicle’s left-hand at the right-hand side of the two-lanes from the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle conflicts with the front side of the Defendant vehicle

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

On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 16,935,00 as the repair cost for the damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused by the instant accident.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 7 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. As the Defendant’s vehicle seeking to turn to the left at an intersection where a yellow color, etc. of the liability for damages occurred on-and-off is on-off, it neglected to turn to the left without neglecting its duty of care to prevent interference with the passage of other vehicles proceeding the right-hand path, even though it was due to the fact that the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, who is the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable for damages caused by the instant accident.

B. On the other hand, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle passes through an intersection with on-and-off yellow lights on and off the front side, it is negligent in neglecting its duty of care to safely pass the intersection by examining well whether there are other vehicles to enter the intersection. Thus, at the time when the Defendant’s vehicle makes a left-hand turn, the Defendant’s vehicle was adjacent to the intersection more than the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but the Defendant’s vehicle intends to turn to the left-hand turn.