1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,941,440 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 2, 2015 to July 28, 2016.

1. The basic facts are the insurer that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract for the Abent motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff motor vehicle”) and B was the driver of the Plaintiff motor vehicle.

The defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract for Category C truck (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant vehicle") and D was the driver of the defendant vehicle.

Plaintiff

On January 17, 2015, at around 14:00, the vehicle driven at the port side of the Defendant’s vehicle running on the front side at a point of 13 kilometers in Busan Metropolitan City, the East Sea Highway (hereinafter referred to as “instant Highway”) located in the Do of Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “instant Highway”), leading to a part of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle running on the front side.

(B) On April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 69,804,80,000 of the insurance money on April 1, 2015 under the name of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle according to the relevant insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Eul 1, 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the cause of the instant traffic accident is based on the respective fault ratio between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle.

According to the purpose of the entire arguments and records, which was recorded in the situation at the time of the traffic accident of this case, the following circumstances are recognized:

In other words, while driving a vehicle on the instant expressway, the Plaintiff: (a) discovered another prior vehicle in the front section; (b) changed the vehicle from the two lanes to the two lanes; and (c) immediately discovered the Defendant vehicle driving along the front section at the two lanes; and (d) changed the vehicle to the one lane, thereby passing the Defendant vehicle.

However, at a point of about 10 meters in the front side immediately after the change of the vehicle line with the Plaintiff’s vehicle as above, the Defendant vehicle was able to verify the direction, etc. for the change of the vehicle vehicle once and its entry into the first lane. However, the Plaintiff vehicle was unable to reduce sufficient speed, resulting in the left side of the Defendant vehicle.