1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with A private taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B automobiles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 09:30 on April 30, 2013, C, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the vicinity of the Jambane Lease Apartment at the center of the Seoul Central Bank, Jung-gu, Seoul, and driving it in the vicinity of the main office of the Korean bank, and driving it over at the intersection of an irregular 3-distance intersection where no signal is installed, and then moving back to the bank from the boundary of the Korean bank. At the time, the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was trying to go directly into the above intersection from the boundary of the above Korean bank from the back of the square square at the center of the Korean bank in the direction of the Plaintiff’s driving, and at the time, the Defendant’s vehicle contacted the right wheeler and fences, and the left wheeler and fences

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

At the time of the instant accident, the safety zone was marked in the form of inducing the right-way path on the surface of the road in the above-mentioned 3-distance intersection, but the Defendant’s vehicle was part of the said safety zone and was in the direct direction-setting.

By June 10, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 822,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 4 through 7, and 11 (including each number in case of additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that the accident in this case was shocked to the plaintiff's vehicle that was normally bypassing according to the above safety zone marking on the wind that the defendant vehicle is prohibited from passing through the safety zone marking, and that there was a total negligence caused by the accident to the driver of the defendant vehicle. On the other hand, the defendant entered the road from the road to the road, while entering the road, the vehicle in the intersection.