The judgment of the first instance, including the plaintiff's claim extended by this court, is modified as follows. A.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to C-business taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance agreement with respect to D-car (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On December 23, 2018, at around 13:46, the Defendant’s vehicle transferred a four-lane road off the bus terminal from the view room to the two-lane in the vicinity of the intersection of the coefficient road in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, to the end of the road facing the three-lane to the end of the two-lane, making a U-turn in the U-turn area below the bus terminal, and proceeded to the two-lane of the Plaintiff’s front wheeler part of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the driver’s seat.

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

The Defendant’s vehicle was destroyed due to the instant accident, and the Defendant paid KRW 1,695,00 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle (=total repair cost of KRW 2,118,000 - Self-Payment of KRW 423,00) to the insured.

Around May 13, 2019, the Defendant requested a review of the ratio of responsibility between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the instant accident, and the said review committee made a decision on the ratio of liability between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle 30:70.

On July 15, 2019, the defendant raised an objection and made a decision of review on the responsibility ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle to 40:60.

E. On July 25, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 847,200 won [=2,118,000 won = 1,695,000 won] x 40%] to the Defendant, which is 40% of the sum of the above repair costs and self-paid charges.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the party could have identified the progress of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on which the Defendant’s assertion was made.