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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence Nos. 1 to 6; and (c) evidence No. 8; and (d) the purport of the entire pleadings.

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

B. On May 30, 2016, around 20:05, there was a traffic accident (hereinafter “the instant traffic accident”) in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along a three-lane road (the four-lane road runs away from the Western Incheon Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu) along the fourth-lane road (the four-lane road runs away from the Western Incheon Metropolitan City, Incheon Metropolitan City) reaches two-lanes, changing the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle that changed the two-lanes to four-lanes, and the two-lanes go far away from the two-lanes.

C. In relation to the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,33,000 in total on July 19, 2016 at the repair cost of the damaged vehicle.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the traffic accident in this case changed from the two-lane to the three-lanes, and then claimed the amount stated in the claim corresponding to 100% of the ratio of the liability of the defendant's vehicle, by asserting that the traffic accident in this case occurred due to the whole negligence of the defendant's vehicle driver who did sudden delay. Accordingly, the defendant filed the lawsuit in this case in violation of the above prior obligation, although (1) the plaintiff filed a claim for the deliberation of the dispute over the amount of compensation in order to claim the compensation against the defendant, and (2) the defendant filed the lawsuit in this case in violation of the above prior obligation, and (3) even if the lawsuit in this case is lawful, the lawsuit in this case is unlawful.