1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,411,268 as well as to the plaintiff on September 20, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is an insurance company that concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to CBata 2.0 Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

B. On June 20, 2018, D, a driver secured under the said automobile insurance contract, driven the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the 15:30 on June 20, 2018, and driving the 324 Sinpo City, Sinpo City, into the two-lanes of the E Hospital room from the Mapoporo to the two-lanes of the E Hospital, caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) where the part, which was driven by the Plaintiff, who was driving in the latter part of the same direction, was wheeled with the front right wheel of the F LF Hastta (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) that was driven by the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as salt pansium, tension, etc., due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, since the accident of this case occurred by negligence, without securing a sufficient distance from D, without confirming the progress of the left-hand side and the rear-side vehicle, by changing the course from two lanes to one lane, the defendant, who is the insurer, is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

B. 1) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the liability of the Defendant ought to be limited by taking into account the negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, as well as on the part of the Plaintiff, taking account of the following reasons: (i) In full view of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to change the vehicle from the two lanes to the one lane; and (ii) in full view of the purport of the entire arguments, it is only recognized that the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which took place at the one lane, was shocked with the rear wheels of the driver’s seat of the Defendant vehicle.