Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked and revoked.

Basic Facts

A. The Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On June 4, 2017, around 09:20, the Plaintiff driven a D-owned vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicle”) and was driving one-lane between the two-lanes near 25.7km at the Cheongju-Pacific Highway resident seat.

At that time, the defendant vehicle changed the two lanes from the two lanes to the one lane in order to overtake the previous vehicle while driving the two lanes on the front side of the plaintiff vehicle. In order to avoid the defendant vehicle, the plaintiff changed the two lanes from the one lane to the two lanes, and changed the two lanes to the two lanes, and changed the two lanes from the one lane to the other, the difference between the center separation zone and the second two.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The approximate background of the instant accident is as shown in the attached Form No. 1.

C. E Co., Ltd., the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “E”), paid KRW 2,446,110 in accordance with the instant accident, and thereafter filed a request for deliberation with the FSC by making the Defendant the Defendant the respondent. Accordingly, the said commission decided the indemnity amount to KRW 1,712,277 on the premise that the ratio of the liability of the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver is 30:70 on January 11, 2018. The said determination was not made final and conclusive without both parties’ objection.

In the instant accident, KRW 654,310 was required for towing costs of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was calculated as KRW 45,340,350, and the value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident is assessed as KRW 14,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Gap evidence No. 8-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, two lanes are proceeding.

The driver of the defendant vehicle who has changed the lane to a one-lane shall safely check the driving speed, etc. of the plaintiff vehicle following the one-lane.