A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to B Traler vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 28, 2016, at around 11:30, the Defendant’s vehicle towing the C vehicle (hereinafter “Towing vehicle”) and proceeding along the two-lane 83.2 km (net starting point) adjacent to the C-Wing Road located on the surface of the G-Wing-gun wastewater of the former North Korea, along the instant two-lanes, as a net slope, along the two-lanes, while changing the lane into one-lane, there was an accident that conflicts between the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle followed on the one-lane and the left part of the towed vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the mutual aid amounting to KRW 9,261,700 in total at the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff argued by the parties that the accident in this case occurred because the defendant's vehicle tried to overtake the plaintiff's vehicle from the two lanes to enter the one lane, and the distance between the two lanes is too high, and again returned to the two lanes, and again, it was unreasonable to attempt to change the two lanes in order to enter the two lanes again, and it was caused by the negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that the accident of this case was caused by the negligence on the left side of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle because the defendant vehicle used direction direction, etc. from the second lane and tried to enter the second lane, found the plaintiff vehicle that was followed by a considerable speed from the first lane, renounced the change of the lane, and returned to the second lane, and thereafter, the plaintiff vehicle was forced to enter the second lane in an unreasonable manner, and it was presumed that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle caused the negligence on the left side of the towed vehicle.

3. The judgment shall be admitted by the descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 8 of this Decree.