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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 2, 2017, around 07:25, the Defendant’s vehicle changed the course from the fourth-lane to the five-lane of the road in the Dongwon-gu, Suwon-si prior to his entry into the Dongwon-gu, Suwon-si, to a five-lane, and went through the vehicle while changing the course from the third-lane to the four-lane, and the part adjacent to the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle being overtaken by the Defendant vehicle was shocked by the front side of the left side of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On April 22, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 716,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (the self-charge of KRW 200,000) as insurance money.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7 (including virtual number), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments as revealed in the above facts finding the error ratio, namely, the driver of the Defendant vehicle tried to change the lane from the fourth to the five-lane, without completing the change of the vehicle flow in the five-lane, and the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle also did not complete the change of course and the driver of the Defendant vehicle was occupied by the operation of the Defendant vehicle, but it is difficult to secure a sufficient safety distance by passing ahead the Defendant vehicle without ensuring the safety distance by examining the progress of the vehicle, even though the vehicle was occupied by the operation of the Defendant vehicle. In light of the background of the accident, collision level, and degree of damage, etc., the accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the Plaintiff and the Defendant vehicle.

The ratio shall be 50 :50 in light of the above circumstances.