A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 5, 2014, at around 20:00, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as indicated in the attached Form No. 20:00, driven the Defendant’s vehicle driving in the direction of towing the first road in front of the Seocho-dong Olympic Sports Center in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, and driven the Defendant’s vehicle, which entered the third lane in the front line, to attempt an illegal internship.

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

On February 17, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20950,000 to the insured as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident in accordance with the insurance contract as seen earlier.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry or video of evidence Nos. 1 through 11, and Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and sought full payment of the repair cost paid against the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

However, according to the evidence adopted earlier, it is apparent that the accident of this case occurred due to the main negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who tried to carry a plplal and plal up the accident of this case on the three-lanes, and attempted to make an illegal internship. However, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle is also aware that the driver of the vehicle of this case did not properly see the front door, and it seems that the above negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case or the

Considering these circumstances, it is reasonable to evaluate the rate of negligence between the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle in relation to the accident of this case as 10:90.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay 18,85,000 won calculated according to the above ratio of liability (=2,0950,000 won x 90%) and that the defendant disputes about the existence and scope of the duty of implementation of this case from February 18, 2015.