Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following amount shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. At the time of the instant accident, at around 07:25 September 6, 2019 at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s insurance-related vehicle CD (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s insurance-related vehicle”) stopped in parallel with the Defendant’s vehicle parked on two-lanes for the signal waiting at the location of the Plaintiff’s Godo-dong, Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Metropolitan Government”) on September 6, 2019 at the time of the instant accident. The Plaintiff’s vehicle parked on the two-lanes for the signal waiting. The Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are facing each other while departing from the signal waiting, and KRW 3,480,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (i.e., total repair cost of KRW 3,980,000 for KRW 50,000 for self-paid vehicle’s insurance proceeds secured by its own car as collateral (based for recognition), the purport of the entire pleading number or video number (including the video number).

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as a whole, it is reasonable to view the instant accident as a co-ownership and room of the original Defendant vehicle driver, and to regard 80% of the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle and 20% of the driver of the Defendant vehicle.

① Except as otherwise provided, drivers of all vehicles shall pass along the lane on the road along which the lane is marked off (Article 14(2) of the Road Traffic Act). The instant accident occurred while the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle stops a two-lane without stopping on the one lane for the signal waiting, and stops a two-lane along the Defendant vehicle on which the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle stops along the two-lane, and is passing through the signal after passing a stop on the two-lane, so the main fault in connection with the instant accident is the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle.

② However, since the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle stops in the vicinity of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, it was negligent in neglecting his duty of care to safely drive the Plaintiff’s vehicle by checking the movement well, and the negligence of the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is also the same.