Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

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

B. On May 22, 2019, at around 20:48, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving a two-lane of the second line road of the second line at a four-lane radius in the area of the Gwangju Mine-gu Highway, Gwangju, a collision occurred between the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly driven by the driver’s seat rearer, while driving the two-lane of the second line.

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

The Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 1,216,60,00, in total, KRW 421,290, and KRW 1,790,00, and KRW 2,211,290, respectively, until June 20, 2019, to E and F, the passenger of the Plaintiff, who was injured by the instant accident, based on the automobile insurance contract for the Plaintiff’s vehicle. On June 26, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 1,216,60, which deducts KRW 200,00 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 2 (including each number), or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle’s failure to discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s change of the vehicle’s vehicle due to the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s failure to perform the duty of the front line direction direction, after the Plaintiff’s vehicle operated the direction direction, etc. in advance. Therefore, the Defendant’s fault related to the instant accident is about 20%. 2) The instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s change of the vehicle’s own vehicle in the section where the change of the bus on an expressway is prohibited at night. As the Defendant’s driver made best efforts to prevent the instant accident by discovering the Plaintiff’s vehicle and properly operating the vehicle, there was no negligence on the Defendant vehicle.

B. Determination 1.