1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,008,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from September 14, 2016 to January 9, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On August 1230, 2016, at around 14:05, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding three lanes among the four-lane roads at the entrance of the National Dr.m. in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangdong-gu, and the Defendant’s vehicle driving the two-lanes of the said road, changing the two-lane lines into three-lanes, and conflicting the back portion of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s left side.

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

On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 41,081,60 with the total loss insurance proceeds of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident. At the time of the instant accident, the high-end market value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is average of KRW 34,00,000, and the value of the remainder is KRW 8,990,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap's evidence 1 to 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case was caused by the negligence on the left side of the plaintiff's vehicle, which was normally driven by the defendant's vehicle, because the accident in this case did not see the plaintiff's vehicle driving in the three-lanes prior to the two-lanes but was caused by the sudden change in the two-lanes to three-lanes.

In regard to this, the Defendant did not continue to have been in front of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, but rather later than the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant raised the speed immediately before the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle can expect the change of the vehicle’s fleet. As such, the instant accident was caused by competition with the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence as seen earlier, the instant accident occurred by the Defendant vehicle’s primary negligence, which attempted to change the lane on the right side. However, the instant accident occurred by the Defendant vehicle’s primary negligence.