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

1. Basic facts

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

B. On April 14, 2018, around 21:27, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is driving along the one lane near the F Parking Lot exit in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu to two lanes. The Plaintiff’s vehicle changed to the two lanes. The Defendant’s vehicle entering the said parking lot to a three-lane and entering the said two-lane as the relation in which the vehicles are parked, and the vehicle entered the said two-lane, and the part ahead of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked.

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

In the instant accident, KRW 4,301,80 of the Plaintiff’s repair cost occurred. On June 29, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,01,800 (=4,301,800 - 1,290,000), deducting the Plaintiff’s self-charges from KRW 1,290,00.

On August 13, 2018, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for deliberation on the ratio of negligence with respect to the reimbursement fee dispute deliberation committee (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”), and the Deliberation Committee decided the ratio of liability of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle to 20%, taking into account the following: “The Defendant’s vehicle entered the area of the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately into the two-lane without a temporary stop, and the Plaintiff’s fault is serious: Provided, That the Plaintiff’s vehicle is recognized to have been negligent in changing the course to the two-lanes continuously without a decrease in the shape of the Defendant’s vehicle to enter the area outside the street, even if it is confirmed that the vehicle continued to change the course to the two-lanes.”

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) is that the plaintiff's vehicle was a normal driver on the second line of the road of this case, and the defendant's vehicle left the parking lot.