1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to Nonparty A and B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 09:30 on March 11, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle was driving ahead of the virtual median line on a road without a central line of E in front of E in the Sinjin-si (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Defendant’s vehicle caused an accident that shocks the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving ahead of the virtual median line (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On April 23, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,750,000 for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence and scope of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion was that the plaintiff's vehicle was difficult to detect the defendant's vehicle in advance by driving along the string road, but the defendant's vehicle could not avoid a collision with the defendant's vehicle on the wind that the defendant's vehicle driven too close to the center of the road. Thus, the accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of the defendant's vehicle.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle should be recognized by more than 40% of the plaintiff's negligence while driving the vehicle with a virtual center line so that it can move at the point of collision.

B. In light of the above, the accident at the time of the accident, as recognized earlier, seems to have occurred by shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven in the opposite direction because the Defendant’s vehicle driven in the opposite direction while driving in a somewhat excessive speed and violated the right-hand traffic method. Thus, the error of the Defendant’s vehicle driving in excess of the virtual center line and the regulatory speed exceeding 20 km/h, which led to the instant accident, seems to have been the main cause of the accident.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the whole evidence and pleadings, i.e., this case.