1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to pay shall be revoked and that part shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On July 18, 2018, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was bypassing from the shooting distance in the so-called Seoul Geumcheon-dong market, Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the part of the Defendant’s vehicle facing the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, following the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the part of the penter and door was shocked with the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On July 24, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,472,420 of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (the self-charge of KRW 500,000) as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including additional numbers), video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

A. In full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as revealed earlier, the following circumstances are as follows, namely, at the time, the Defendant vehicle was in a normal crosssection pursuant to the new code, and the Plaintiff vehicle driver was in a limited state of view due to a taxi which stops in the crosssection in the crosssection, and thus, he neglected such duty despite having to check the traffic situation in the crosssection so as not to obstruct the passage of the vehicle in the crosssection. On the other hand, in light of the background of the accident, the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle were negligent in neglecting the duty of care, even though the Defendant vehicle driver had a duty of care to keep the front section and the right and the right and the right and the right and the degree of the collision, etc., the instant accident occurred by the concurrence between the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle.

It is reasonable to view that the ratio is 80:20 in light of the above circumstances.

(b) scope of indemnity;