1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

On May 14, 2017, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) Defendant Insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) driven on the two-lanes of the above road, the Plaintiff vehicle in the situation of collision between Pyeongtaek-si and Seobuk-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Pyeongtaek-do, in the location of May 14, 2017. However, even though the Defendant vehicle seeking to avoid changing course from the three-lanes to the two-lanes, the part of the pentum part of the E vehicle (hereinafter “victim”) was shocked. The Plaintiff paid the following insurance proceeds as follows.

The actual contents of the automobile injury: 718,273 won excluding 200,000,000 won for self-paid car damages: 718,273 won excluding 200,000,000 won for self-paid car driver, 1,894,480 won for passengers H 1,89,149,780 won for passengers of the Plaintiff vehicle, and 3,285,53,349 won for passengers of the Plaintiff vehicle (applicable for recognition): The fact that there is no dispute concerning the actual contents of the automobile damage, including the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle, 3,353,349 won for passengers of the Plaintiff vehicle (applicable for recognition): Gap, 5,7,7,8,10-1, Gap evidence 11-2, and Gap evidence 12, and the purport of the whole oral arguments, as a whole.

2. Determination

A. On the premise that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, the Plaintiff asserts that with respect to the part of F’s damage, including the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the insurer shall exercise the right of reimbursement corresponding to the internal apportionment ratio between the joint tortfeasor with respect to each part of the damages of G, H, I, I, and J, including the amount based on subrogation, the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle, and the cost of repairing the damaged vehicle. However, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred by the negligence of F.

According to the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 11-1, 2, and Gap evidence Nos. 12-13 and video, the defendant vehicle seems to change its own lane without using direction direction, etc., but at the time of the accident of this case.