1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The reasons for this Court’s finding of facts are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Since the accident of this case caused the following damages to the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the accident of this case, the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, should pay the Plaintiff the damages and the damages incurred therefrom to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim for damages due to the accident of this case from B.

① The Plaintiff’s vehicle was 10,818,490 won (i.e., daily suspension damage 161,470 won x 67 days) due to its failure to conduct business for 67 days during the repair period due to the instant accident.

② Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle suffered serious damage, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle has been technically able to repair but remains unreparable.

In light of the result of the appraisal commission made on November 19, 2018 to the appraiser of the court of first instance, the exchange value reduction remaining after the repair of the Plaintiff vehicle is 28,930,000 won.

③ After the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,685,00 as repair costs, such as the adjustment of wheelchairs, replacement of a wheel boat, etc., due to the Plaintiff’s phenomenon of fire-fighting and the fluorization of a Hand on the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the statements and images in Gap evidence 16, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1, are as follows. In other words, the defendant vehicle prior to the occurrence of the accident of this case, was in the first lane, and the plaintiff vehicle in the second lane was overtaking the plaintiff vehicle, and immediately changed the vehicle to the second lane without any reasonable distance, and the defendant vehicle tried to enter the entrance of the right-hand G resting area after changing the course to the second lane, but it conflicts with the two lanes.