1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 103,460 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from November 13, 2014 to November 20, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 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 October 10, 2014, according to the Olympic Games around 10:50 on October 10, 2014, the driver of the Defendant vehicle changed the course to a four-lane on the road in front of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant road”) while driving a vehicle along the three-lanes of the five-lanes of letter from the opening of the lock room, and changed the course from the five-lane to the four-lanes on the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle, which changed the course from the five-lane to the four-lanes on the back side of the instant road, and the remaining part of the Plaintiff vehicle, which changed to the four-lane,

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

On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 147,800 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or videos of Gap's evidence 1 to 7, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The accident of this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who shocked the plaintiff's vehicle while changing the lane in the section where the change of the lane is prohibited without properly examining the surrounding area. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the full amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and the compensation for its delay. 2) The defendant's driver also did not properly consider the defendant's attempt to change the lane in the three lanes prior to the same direction and caused the accident of this case while changing the vehicle, and it is reasonable to view that such rate of negligence of the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle and the driver of the defendant's vehicle is 6:4. Thus, the defendant is not obligated to respond to the plaintiff's claim for compensation in excess of the amount equivalent to the above fault ratio of the driver of the defendant's vehicle.

B. The purport of the entire pleadings is to examine the above evidence.