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. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings on the images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 8, and the video of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4:

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B-Ed Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-Wed Vehicles”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant-Wed Vehicles”).

B. A, around 03:00 on March 5, 2016, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and was straight along the two-lanes among the two-lanes located in the Dong-dong, Seo-dong, Busan, the vehicle behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed its course from the same direction to the two-lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle into the front left-hand part of the front right-hand part of the vehicle. Accordingly, the accident that the Plaintiff’s vehicle turned back into one-lane and re-eass the central separation zone, resulting in the Plaintiff’s damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,280,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a petition for deliberation with the Defendant for deliberation by the committee for deliberation on disputes over indemnity (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”). On July 4, 2016, the Deliberation Committee decided the negligence ratio between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle that contributed to the instant accident, “Considering the point that the Defendant’s vehicle is the latter vehicle and the situation of the collision, etc.” as 10:90.

2. The defendant's judgment on this safety defense has become final and conclusive in the decision of the Deliberation Committee which judged the ratio of negligence between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle 10:90. Thus, the plaintiff's request for exception to the duty of compensation before and after the above decision became final and conclusive does not have any effect, and the plaintiff cannot assert any error ratio different from the above decision of the Deliberation Committee. Thus, the lawsuit