1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 610,400 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto are from March 1, 2014 to March 17, 2015.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence Nos. 1, either in full purport of the entire pleadings:

The plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with B and C (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Vehicle") with respect to the Switzerland and A (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff Vehicle").

B. Around 10:40 on January 14, 2014, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle driven the Defendant’s vehicle and traveling along the Defendant’s motorway, which is an exclusive motorway, along the Masular intersection, from the Masular intersection to the Masular intersection, and the Defendant’s driver shocked the left rear wheels of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the front shoulder part of the Defendant’s vehicle in the vicinity of the Masular intersection into the intersection.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). C.

On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 872,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff's vehicle entered the road along the intersection of the sloping intersection into the sloping intersection, along with the intersection of the sloping intersection, and proceeded with 300 meters along the one lane. The defendant's driver, while driving along the two lanes, was changing the plaintiff's vehicle into the one lane without verifying the plaintiff's vehicle, and the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case was caused by the driver's unilateral negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle while the driver of the defendant's vehicle is driving in one lane into the riverside North Korea, because the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle entered the road into the riverside North Korea along the intersection of the mountain intersection into the riverside North Korea, failing to verify the defendant's vehicle.

B. In full view of the contents and images of the evidence No. 7, No. 2, and No. 2, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows.