2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

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

B. On September 29, 2014, around 06:25, the driver of the Defendant-owned vehicle is driving a one-lane of the way near the acquisition village of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City on September 29, 2014 as an ambassador-ri plane from the area of the Gangseo-dong fire station.

On the wind of a vehicle C (hereinafter referred to as the "vehicle") which is proceeding in the opposite direction, there was an accident where the plaintiff's vehicle that was proceeding on the rear side of the preceding vehicle, which shocks the rear part of the preceding vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "accident").

C. By December 8, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 498,880 to D, a driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, with medical expenses and the amount agreed.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number if there are several numbers), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Examining the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire argument in light of the aforementioned evidence, the instant accident occurred in the same direction as the Plaintiff’s vehicle behind the front vehicle, and it is reasonable to view that the instant accident resulted from the main fault of the Defendant vehicle, which invaded the center line and went to the left at the left, and eventually, the instant accident occurred from the main fault of the Defendant vehicle, which invaded the first center line.

However, as seen earlier, the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who violated the duty to ensure the safety distance with the preceding vehicle and the duty to keep the front-time watch also contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of the damage, and thus, the ratio of the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle out of the damage caused by the instant accident is limited to 80%

B. Therefore, the defendant's negligence ratio to the plaintiff.