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 to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A at the time of the insured vehicle A at the time of the insured vehicle A at the time of the accident, and at the location of 16:3 on October 9, 2016 at the Dhigh School near Seongbuk-gu Seoul, the insured vehicle prior to the plaintiff's insured vehicle B at the two-lanes in Seoul, did not turn on direction, etc. and changed the vehicle into the one-lanes, and there is no dispute over the insured vehicle's self-charges 200,000 (based on recognition) of the insured vehicle's self-charges paid for the collision with the plaintiff's insured vehicle as the first-lanes at the time of the change into the two-lanes, and the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments as a whole.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s insured vehicle, and claimed the total amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff and the damages for delay from the day following the final payment date, and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle was negligent.

According to the above facts, although the main reason for the occurrence of the instant accident is that the Defendant’s insured vehicle changes the vehicle without changing the course, the Defendant’s insured vehicle attempted to change the vehicle while driving ahead of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle, and it appears that it was a situation where the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle could recognize it as an insured vehicle driver. Thus, the negligence of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle driver cannot be assessed as zero.

In light of all the circumstances, such as the background of the accident, the degree of conflict, and the degree of shock, it is reasonable to see that the negligence of the Plaintiff’s insured and the Defendant’s insured vehicle on this case is 3:7.

We do not accept both of these arguments.

Next, I examine the scope of indemnity.

The insurance money of this case is paid on the basis of the self-vehicle damage security, and the self-vehicle damage security by the insurer against the occurrence of the insurance accident.