1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 592,300 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto are from January 30, 2018 to May 1, 2019.

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

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident, on November 5, 2017, at around 23:00, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff, who operated the first lane in the situation of 2.2km in the direction of Gwangju-dong Highway of the 2.2km-si, Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, but found the preceding defendant vehicle and changed the course into the second lane, but the defendant vehicle attempted to change the course again into the second lane, and the course of the vehicle was changed to the second lane, and there is no dispute between the first and the second lanes during the driving of the vehicle and the first lane. The fact that the 50,00,000 won of the self-paid vehicle of the insured vehicle of the self-employed vehicle of the automobile of the Plaintiff was paid the estimated insurance money of KRW 10,423,00,000 in the first and second lanes

2. Considering the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s driver is 9:1 in view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the video, evidence Nos. 5 and evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as a whole.

Plaintiff

Vehicles shall proceed at a speed exceeding 60km by one lane.

It is running at the same speed by changing the course to two-lane as it is, even though it finds the previous defendant vehicle driving at a more slow speed, even though it is a practical part that finds the previous defendant vehicle.

The defendant's vehicle turned on the direction direction and attempted to change the course into a two-lane, but still has changed the course to a one-lane as it is.

At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle, which had been the one-third degree more than the two-lanes, was in operation. This is difficult to find out that the Defendant’s vehicle, which was the one-lane of the two-lanes, continued to change its course to the two-lanes, or it is difficult to make a judgment between the two-lanes, in the situation where it is difficult to make a decision on whether it would change its course to the two-lanes or return to the original one.

A vehicle shall also be used to the defendant.