The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 27,760.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 13, 2016, around 18:44, the Plaintiff’s vehicle had changed the course from D on the street in front of the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and from the five-lane to the four-lane, there was an accident in which the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, who was in the fourth-lane, and the left part of the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, contacted (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On November 16, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 138,800 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the Defendant’s vehicle neglected its duty to see the front left left left left and did not discover the Plaintiff’s vehicle and shock the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant, who is the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate for the damages caused by the instant accident.

However, it is recognized that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle has entered the four-lanes in violation of the duty of the driver of the vehicle in front line while changing the vehicle. Therefore, in consideration of these circumstances, the ratio of responsibility of the driver of the defendant vehicle is limited to 20%.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 27,760 due to the instant accident (i.e., KRW 138,800 x 20%) and to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until November 1, 2017, which is the date the Defendant rendered a ruling of the first instance that is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation to perform from November 17, 2016 on the day following the day when the Plaintiff’s insurance money was paid to the Plaintiff.

3. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is prohibited from changing the course of the plaintiff's vehicle.