1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Review of the record on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal reveals the following facts.

In the first instance trial, a copy of the complaint of this case and the date of pleading against the defendant were served by service by public notice, and the pleading was proceeded, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered on March 10, 2017, and the original copy of the judgment was also served on the defendant by public notice.

However, the Defendant was aware of the progress of the instant pleadings and the pronouncement of the judgment, which was issued a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance on April 14, 2017, and became aware of the said judgment, and subsequently filed an appeal for the subsequent completion on April 17, 2017.

In such a case, barring any other special circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was unable to observe the period of appeal, which is a peremptory term, by failing to know the progress and result of the instant lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is lawful.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

The insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant is the insurer. The Defendant is the Defendant’s vehicle C at the time of the accident described in the following B (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

(2) On June 1, 2016, the Defendant driven the Defendant’s vehicle and was driving along a side-road without the median line located in 109, Songpa-gu, Seoul. However, the Defendant reached the intersection of the private distance without signal and was straighten.

At the time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was traveling from the right side to the private distance based on the direction of the progress of the Defendant’s vehicle among the roads connected to the above private distance (on the road, the one-way sign and the opposite direction on the road), and the Defendant’s vehicle passing through the private distance was not avoided and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). 3 The Plaintiff on July 19, 2016.