1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked, and above.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicles”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicles”).

B. On March 24, 2017, at around 14:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the two-lane road in front of the Friju Airport located in Gangseo-gu Busan, Busan, into a single lane in the direction of the large floodgate from the side of the Kimhae Airport. At that time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle discovered the vehicle parked in the two-lanes of the said road at that time and changed its course to the one-lane to avoid the collision with the Defendant vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle reported the vehicle to change its course to the one-lane, and received the central separation zone structure with the left-hand wheels of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to return the hand to the left-hand side

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). C.

On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 5,300,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant traffic accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle is 100% since the instant traffic accident occurred by discovering the vehicle parked on the front section by neglecting the duty of the front section of the vehicle on the front section, and by changing the rapid course of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle does not exceed 40% inasmuch as the instant traffic accident occurred by neglecting the duty of the front section of the vehicle on the front section in front of the Plaintiff, even though the Defendant’s vehicle was changed in normal course, the Plaintiff neglected the duty of the front section of the vehicle on the front section of the vehicle on the front section, and by finding late the change of the vehicle on the front section of the vehicle on the front section.