1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Cases of indemnity between the insurers of vehicles involved in a traffic accident;

A. On April 17, 2018, the insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) Defendant Insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)’s insured vehicle CD temporary 15:30 on April 17, 2018, and the situation of the collision of the instant accident in front of the Red Community Center in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, changed the two lanes, and the Defendant vehicle changed the two lanes to the one lane, and turned the front wheels of the Plaintiff’s front wheels and the rear wheels to the latter.

Details of the payment of insurance proceeds of 2,107,630 won by April 27, 2018 (excluding self-charges)

B. The first instance court ordered the Defendant to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 1,896,867 won ( = 2,107,630 x 0.9) and the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated under the Civil Act from April 28, 2018 to October 18, 2018, which is the day following the first instance judgment, from April 28, 2018, which is the day following the day when the insurance money is paid, and 15% per annum as stipulated under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

In light of the background of the instant accident, immediately before the instant accident, the distance of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the impact of the vehicle, etc., the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle entering a two-lane without properly examining the rear vehicle.

The plaintiff's driver is deemed to have been unable to avoid this, so it is difficult to view the accident of this case as the plaintiff's driver's negligence.

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

C. Defendant’s duty of indemnity of KRW 2,107,630 ( = 2,107,630 x 1.0)

2. Accordingly, the Defendant’s defense against the Plaintiff is reasonable as to the existence and scope of the obligation of performance since April 28, 2018, as to KRW 2,107,630 and KRW 1,896,867 cited by the first instance court.