1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid next shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to B car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 30, 2013, at around 13:00, the Defendant’s vehicle moved from the back road near the 331-128-dong, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, to the one-lane in which it is possible to turn to the opposite market as soon as possible through the three-lane and the two-lanes. At the time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, along the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lane road, is moving to the new opposite market, and the Defendant’s vehicle entered the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lane road, while passing through the safety zone on the left side and immediately passing through the safety zone on the left side, there was an accident that conflicts between the front and rear part of the Defendant vehicle and the front part of the two-way part of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

If the situation at the time of the accident is indicated as a picture, it shall be as specified in the attached Form No. 2(2) on the site map of the accident.

(Ma1st vehicle is the defendant vehicle, and Me2 vehicle is the plaintiff vehicle).

On October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,989,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle destroyed by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, it is reasonable to view that the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver of the instant accident is 30%:70%. As such, the Defendant did not appeal against the Plaintiff regarding KRW 1,392,30 as the indemnity amount (i.e., the aforementioned repair cost of KRW 1,989,00 x 70% of the Defendant’s driver’s fault ratio) and KRW 795,60 as the cited amount in the first instance judgment on October 10, 2013.