1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the insurer of the D vehicle driven by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer of the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 25, 2016, around 16:30 on June 25, 2016, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and attempted to make a U-turn beyond the central line indicated in the two-lane of the G oil station in front of the G oil station in the city F in the city of Pyeongtaek. On the other hand, there was an accident that conflicts between the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle in progress at the first lane and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle after the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat (hereinafter “instant accident”).

Plaintiff

On the vehicle, H was accompanied by the driver C in addition to the driver C.

C. In the instant accident, C suffered bodily injury, such as bral chroin, spine salt, etc.

From August 8, 2016 to November 11, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,221,990 as C’s medical expenses, and KRW 1,500,00 as the agreed amount on August 14, 2018. From July 26, 2016 to August 19, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,543,280 as H’s medical expenses, and KRW 2,00,000 as the agreed amount on August 14, 2018.

The defendant filed a request with the I Deliberation Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Deliberation Committee") to deliberate on the part of the damage caused by the substitute of the instant accident.

On February 27, 2017, the said commission decided 90% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 10% of the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant decision”) as is (hereinafter “instant decision”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The decision of the deliberation committee on the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion has the same effect as that of the reconciliation agreement, and thus, according to the decision of the instant case, 10% of the negligence of the Defendant

Therefore, pursuant to the proviso of Article 3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and attached Table 1, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,600,000,000 for the liability insurance amount for “brain sugar” under Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the Defendant’s vehicle out of the insurance amount paid to H.