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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the driver of the CM3 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to D Freight Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

B. On September 6, 2018, the Plaintiff driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 17:50, and driving it along the four lanes in front of the 4-lane G point in the FF Bank G point in Gwangju City, while making it impossible to keep straight on the four-lane, and thus, the Plaintiff changed the three-lane to a three-lane in order to drive straight.

On the other hand, while the defendant vehicle proceeding the above three-lanes into the front side of the plaintiff vehicle, the back side of the plaintiff vehicle changing the above three-lanes into the front side of the right side.

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

Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s airbager, etc. was destroyed, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 902,768 at its repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In addition to the purport of the entire argument in light of the above basic facts, the fact that the defendant vehicle did not discover the plaintiff vehicle that changed the lane from the right side of the defendant vehicle to the right side, and the accident of this case occurred due to negligence, which led to the destruction of the urier, etc. of the plaintiff vehicle.

(1) The Defendant asserted that the accident of this case occurred due to the Plaintiff’s failure to change the lane by using the blind spot of the Defendant’s vehicle in an urgent and unreasonable manner. However, according to each of the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have already entered the lane, and thus, the accident of this case is difficult to deem that the accident of this case occurred due to the Plaintiff’s total negligence. Accordingly, the Defendant is a mutual aid manager who entered into a car mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant vehicle.