1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid in addition to the following shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to B-wheeled Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 14:00 on December 7, 2015, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driven the four-lanes in front of the intersection in the south of the intersection of the Sungsungdong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, along the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle passing through the between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and India, was shocked with the front front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On February 1, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,000 insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to make a right-way and attempted to make a right-way at low speed, and the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to make a right-hand overtaking through a narrow space between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and India, the instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s primary negligence of the Defendant’s driver who attempted to make a right-hand overtaking in an unreasonable manner. However, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s driver was negligent in neglecting his duty of care to check the right-hand side of the course while bypassing.

B. Therefore, the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred when the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle were concurrent. In full view of the circumstances surrounding the accident of this case recognized earlier, the course and degree of the vehicle of the plaintiff and the defendant vehicle, it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle is 1: 9.

C. Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.