Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under the order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is the owner and operator of E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 11:51 on March 21, 2019, the Defendant’s vehicle runs along the five-lane road (hereinafter “instant road”) near the west-dong Hacheon-dong Hacheon-do Line, in two-lanes.

The intersection changed the course from the front line to the three-lane, and the F vehicle, which was in transit at the three-lane, was rapidly stopped in order to avoid a conflict with the Defendant vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was in transit, was at the end of the damaged vehicle, was in conflict with the damaged vehicle that was rapidly stopped, and the collision between the Defendant vehicle and the damaged vehicle, resulting in the shock.

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

On March 29, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,901,080, which deducted self-paid 475,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and Eul evidence No. 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the above facts recognized as the fault ratio, namely, ① the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle without securing the safety distance and instead neglecting the duty of front-time care while driving the vehicle. ② The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have failed to avoid a collision with the damaged vehicle due to neglecting the duty of front-time care. ② The damaged vehicle’s course was changed in a tent while the damaged vehicle was at a distance from the damaged vehicle, and the damaged vehicle did not directly conflict with the victimized vehicle by recognizing and stopping the change of the course of the Defendant’s vehicle, and before the Plaintiff vehicle shocks the damaged vehicle. ③ The driver of all the vehicles installed safety signs to prevent a change of course.