1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the amount ordered below.

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

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff vehicle") shall be the insured vehicle.

Defendant’s insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”).

CD On October 31, 2018, at a place of 15:30 on October 31, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was later driven than the Defendant’s vehicle, is proceeding on the one-lane road, as shown in the attached Form No. 1 of the accident site map in the state of the road in the

When the body occurs, the vehicle of the defendant who was in the two lanes of the two lanes while entering the lane which is a left-hand left-hand lane in excess of the center line is changed to the above lane.

Plaintiff

The right side of the vehicle and the left side of the vehicle of the defendant vehicle are shocked (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"), the insurance proceeds paid to the defendant vehicle (excluding the self-paid 500,000 won) on November 14, 2018, and the secured vehicle damage [based] is not a dispute, and the reasons for recognition are as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, and Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle want to change the course of the vehicle, if there is a possibility of obstructing the normal passage of another vehicle running in the direction to change the course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the driver of the defendant vehicle shall not change the course without properly verifying the plaintiff vehicle driving on the ticket, and the accident of this case occurred. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the accident of this case occurred due to the principal negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.

However, in light of the fact that it is difficult for the driver of the Defendant vehicle who changed the lane to enter the lane above the center line and to expect the plaintiff vehicle to be in an abnormal progress, the driver's negligence of the plaintiff vehicle driving beyond the center line became the cause of the occurrence and expansion of the accident in this case.

(3).