1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle dealing business entity’s insurance contract with B as an agent for an accident that occurred while driving on his/her behalf with B, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Young-si Co., Ltd. for a motor vehicle accident owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 20:29 on October 23, 2013, D, an agent driver belonging to the above A, driven a vehicle E (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and was straighted by three-lanes among four-lanes of the shooting distance in the office of Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, in the two-lanes of the above shooting distance, the front part of the F Driving, which was straighted into the front part of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was turned down by two-lanes of the above shooting distance, depending on two-lanes of the distance.

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

Until December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,029,030,030 in total with G medical expenses and the amount agreed upon in the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff 1's assertion that the parties reached the intersection at the time when the driver of the plaintiff 1 entered the intersection of this case was a stop signal, and the plaintiff 1's vehicle entered the intersection of this case but the signal was changed before getting out of the intersection, and collision with the defendant 1's vehicle entering the intersection of this case. The accident of this case occurred with the driver of the plaintiff 1's vehicle who did not immediately pass through the intersection of this case, and the driver of the defendant 1 violated his duty of care to enter the intersection after passing through both the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff 1's vehicle and other vehicles entering the intersection of this case.