1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Basic Facts

The circumstances of the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle DE of the Plaintiff insured vehicle at the time of the accident, on January 31, 2018, at a place of 17:20 on January 31, 2018, the Defendant vehicle in the situation of the collision between 180 and the left-hand turn using two lanes, which are directly straighted on the four-lane road at the above location. The front vehicle stops and stops rapidly. Nonparty F vehicle, who was left-hand behind the Defendant vehicle, was parked in order to avoid collision with the Defendant vehicle, and the Plaintiff vehicle driven in accordance with the straight lines from the vehicle behind the above Nonparty 1, 3,140,100 won, was driven by the Nonparty 3,140,100 won. The insurance money paid.

B. The judgment of the first instance court judged the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle 70:30, and calculated the Plaintiff’s amount that can be claimed as KRW 942,030.

[Ground of recognition] A. 1 through 6, 1, 1, and the argument of the purport of the entire pleadings by the parties to the judgment, and the plaintiff's allegation by the parties to the judgment is that the defendant's vehicle attempted to illegally cross the vehicle on the two-lanes, and that the plaintiff's vehicle was concealed on the wind to stop on the part of the party's own, and thus, the plaintiff's unilateral

The defendant's vehicle was inevitably stopped on the wind that the preceding vehicle left left and stopped, and there is a justifiable reason for this.

The instant accident is a simple drilling that occurred due to the failure to secure the safety distance of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and it is a unilateral fault of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the facts and evidence as seen earlier, the accident in this case is determined that the negligence of the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the negligence of the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle have occurred, and it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 70

① The Plaintiff’s vehicle, without securing the safety distance with Nonparty 1, does not deviate from the Nonparty 1 who stops the vehicle due to a mistake in driving the vehicle.