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. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

On April 29, 2018, at the permanent residence of 12:05, the Defendant driven a Tracker by putting the Tracker on the right side of the primary road located in the door-to-permanent waters and turning the Tracker into the left side, and then turning the direction into the left side of the Tracker, and then passing through the left side of the Tracker.

(hereinafter “instant accident.” On June 1, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,840,000,000, after deducting KRW 500,000 from the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry and video of Gap evidence (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the instant accident is parked in a place other than the roadway, and that the Defendant’s fault occurred from the Defendant’s total fault, which had been sent to the direction of the progress of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thus, the Defendant should pay KRW 2,840,000, which is the total insurance money, to the Plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that the accident of this case was attributable to the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle which was delayed beyond the central line.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the fact of recognizing the ratio of negligence on board (1) and the evidence mentioned above, all drivers shall pass along the right side of the center line (Article 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act), but the Defendant shall not look at the access of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the rear side, and the Defendant shall have been negligent in a sudden internship, without examining the access of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the rear side, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s driver as the Plaintiff’s vehicle should have been driven with due care, and thus, the instant accident neglected the Defendant’s duty of safe driving in the course of overtaking.