1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to A trucking vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”). The Defendant is an insurer that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B ASEAN car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On January 10, 2017, at around 17:31, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving the East Sea Highway located in the Dole-si Dole-si, at the front side of the front side of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, was shocked by the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which had been changed from the front side of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the first lane, in the direction of the front side of the front side of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

1) The Defendant paid KRW 15,197,00 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Automobile Insurance Claim Dispute Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”).

(2) On July 24, 2017, the Deliberation Committee made a decision to deliberate and coordinate that the Plaintiff’s negligence on the part of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle should be 80% (i.e., KRW 15,197,00 x 40%) on the ground that at the time when the Plaintiff’s vehicle completed the change of vehicular road, the Plaintiff’s instant accident is an accident in which the Defendant’s vehicle was protruding behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thus, the responsibility ratio of the Defendant vehicle should be more than 80%. (ii) On July 24, 2017, the Deliberation Committee recognized the respective responsibility ratio of the Plaintiff and the Defendant vehicle in the instant accident as 40% and 60%, and made the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant.

Accordingly, on August 16, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,078,80 to the Defendant according to the above decision of deliberation and coordination, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit against the above decision of deliberation and coordination.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 3, 4, and Eul No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle was 216km/h at the time of the instant accident, and as such, the Defendant’s vehicle was over two times the fixed speed.