1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has concluded an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to D Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around 00:23 on February 28, 2019, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle and driven the Defendant vehicle to the three-lanes of the four-lanes from the Gannam-si Subdivision Highway located in the Gannam-si, Sungnam-si. The driver changed the lane to the four-lanes.

당시 원고차량 운전자는 원고차량을 운전하여 피고차량 뒤쪽에서 4차로로 진행하고 있었는데, 피고차량을 피하기 위하여 오른쪽 갓길 쪽으로 진로를 변경하였다가 방호벽을 들이받은 후 튕겨 나오면서 피고차량을 들이받은 데 이어 피고차량 앞 3차로에서 진행하던 E 운전의 자동차(이하 ‘선행차량’이라 한다)를 들이받았다

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

In the instant accident, E and F (Plaintiffs) suffered injuries, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,724,290 in total with the medical expenses and the amount agreed upon by May 15, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 and 2, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the instant accident occurred due to the common negligence of the original Defendant driver, and the negligence ratio is reasonable to regard the Plaintiff driver as 70% and the Defendant driver as 30%.

① At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle completed the change of the lane into a four-lane.

The driver of the plaintiff vehicle is driving at a very rapid speed at night, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle finds that the defendant vehicle has changed the lane to a four-lane, and promptly changed the course to the right side in order to avoid this, resulting in the accident of this case. Therefore, the main fault in the accident of this case is the driver of the plaintiff vehicle.

(2) Defendant vehicles: