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

At the time of the accident, at around 13:30 on April 22, 2019 at the time of the accident, the defendant's vehicle, in the situation of the conflict of the direction of the permanent tunnel in the Seocho-dong permanent intersection in Busan-dong, Busan-dong, where the vehicle of the defendant's insurance relationship was at the time of the accident, is overtaken to the right space of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the vehicle of the defendant's vehicle, which was driven by the defendant's vehicle in the course of bypassing the direction of the permanent road of the above permanent road

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the total negligence of the defendant vehicle, who neglected the defendant vehicle's duty of care to the right-hand side of the right-hand side while the plaintiff vehicle was bypassing to the right-hand side of the right-hand side of the right-hand side.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred and the accident of this case occurred. The plaintiff's vehicle, which is the latter vehicle, is unreasonable to the right side of the defendant vehicle, and tried to make a right-hand way than the defendant vehicle.

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments and evidence revealed in the judgment 1, is that the Defendant’s vehicle is proceeding prior to the right side of the Defendant vehicle. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s failure to keep the safety distance with the Defendant’s vehicle that is the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle. On the other hand, the Defendant’s vehicle was negligent in neglecting the duty to take a warning on the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the right side.