1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. In full view of the fact that there is no dispute over the right to claim damages, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1 through 9, 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole images and pleadings, around September 18, 2015, Eul driven a B automobile (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff vehicle") which is the owner of a happy architect office that purchased the Plaintiff's automobile insurance, and moved to the above parking lot by driving a two-lanes on September 18, 2015, U.S., Dong-gu C Apartment-gu, U.S. C apartment, and then moving to the above parking lot. D used a two-wheeled vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle") which was subscribed to the Defendant's automobile insurance, and used a two-wheeled vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "the above vehicle on the side of the Plaintiff") to overtake the Plaintiff's vehicle behind the vehicle on the side of the Plaintiff, and paid it to the Plaintiff 10th of the front of the repair vehicle without any collision between the Plaintiff 16.

According to the above facts, D shall safely drive the vehicle while keeping the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff, who is well in line with D, and shall safely drive the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff, and when overtaking the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff, even though it has a duty to pass on the left side of the plaintiff's vehicle by using a safe method in accordance with the speed, course and other road conditions of the vehicle on the side, it was damaged by negligence, and thus, the operator of the vehicle on the part of the defendant is obliged to compensate for the damage caused by the operation of the vehicle on the part of the defendant, the owner of the vehicle on the part of the plaintiff, and the happy architect, the defendant, who is the insurer of the vehicle on the part of the defendant.