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.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s Vehicle”).

B. On May 12, 2018, around 16:30, there was a traffic accident in which the Defendant’s vehicle, who is the subsequent vehicle, was driven in excess of the center line of the yellow-ray, was shocked on the one-lane road located in Bupyeong-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and the front and the Defendant’s vehicle, driving in excess of the center line of the yellow-ray.

C. On May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, paid KRW 191,600, which deducts KRW 200,000 of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from KRW 391,60.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 6, Eul evidence 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the driver of the Defendant vehicle, who is the latter vehicle, neglected the duty of safety and duty of the front-way driver, resulting in shocking the Plaintiff vehicle, which is the preceding vehicle.

As such, since the above traffic accident occurred due to the previous negligence of the Defendant’s driver, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above insurance proceeds of KRW 191,600 and damages for delay.

B. In full view of the facts acknowledged as the Plaintiff’s liability for damages and the evidence revealed earlier, the background leading up to the occurrence of the foregoing traffic accident, the location of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the accident, and the part leading up to the collision, the Defendant’s vehicle following the Plaintiff’s vehicle began to cross the center line first, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the opposite direction beyond the center line, but this did not change the front and the Defendant’s front line. At the time of the occurrence of the said traffic accident, the considerable portion of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was already entered the opposite direction beyond the center line, and the Defendant’s vehicle still was driven ahead of the opposite direction.