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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

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

B. On July 15, 2017, at around 18:57, at the underground parking lot of the building in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, an accident occurred that conflicts between the front part of the left part of the Defendant vehicle, where the Defendant vehicle was running a bend and the lower part of the lower part of the Plaintiff vehicle, who proceeded with a bend and the lower part of the lower part of the Plaintiff vehicle to walk.

(See Attached Form 3).

On August 9, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff KRW 674,00,00 in total, and KRW 1,347,200 in D, as repair cost.

On October 30, 2017, the committee for deliberation on car insurance disputes concluded that both the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle violated the central line, and determined that the negligence ratio of the said accident is “50% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle: 50% of the Defendant’s vehicle.”

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, Eul 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s above accident is an accident caused by Defendant’s central collision, and the negligence ratio is “0% of Plaintiff’s vehicle: 100% of Defendant’s vehicle.”

B. The Defendant’s accident is an accident that occurred due to the collision and speed of the center line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The negligence ratio is “60% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle: 40% of the Defendant’s vehicle.”

3. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire records and pleadings, the foregoing accident is an accident caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, and it is reasonable to deem that the ratio of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the above accident is at least 50% or more, but the judgment of the first instance court cannot be modified disadvantageous to the Plaintiff in the instant case appealed only by the Plaintiff.