1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 46,00,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from March 25, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to AMW car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B Poter car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 16:20 on January 14, 2015, C driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle along the direction of the Gupo-dong from the front 72-1 adjacent to the Gupo-dong of Busan to the Gupo-dong. D, on the same temporary border, is driving the Defendant’s vehicle in the same direction as the Plaintiff’s vehicle according to the road that combines the Defendant’s vehicle from the right side to the right side, while entering the same four-lane along the said river. While the vehicle on the number number omitted above entered the same lane as above, C sawd the steering gear toward the three-lane to avoid the sudden defect and avoid this. As the Defendant’s vehicle turns off on the broom, D shocked the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that had been driving the three-lane road.

As a result, the plaintiff's vehicle was pushed in the two-lanes to the visual opposite direction, and the ES5 car driving in the two-lanes has shocked the part of the driver's seat of the plaintiff vehicle.

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

On February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 46,000,000 at the vehicle repair cost.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 12 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the change of the driver's speed, and that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle could not predict the move of the defendant's vehicle, and therefore, the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle is entirely responsible for the occurrence of the accident in this case.

As to this, the defendant is the location of the accident in this case, and the road that combines with the right side of the four-lanes is the location where the accident in this case is operated.