1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A at the time of the insured vehicle A at the time of the accident, on June 20, 2017, around 15:36, 2017, at the right side where there is no central line of collision in the vicinity of the Jin-Eup, Leecheon-si, the head of the insured vehicle at the right side, where the insured vehicle is at the right side, and the insured vehicle is at the right side, and there is no dispute as to the payment of shock insurance money to the driver in front of the driver's seat in front of the driver's seat in front of the driver's seat, and the statements and images of Gap's 1 through 8, Eul's 1, and Eul's 1 through 4 (including various numbers if there are several numbers), and the purport of the whole oral argument.

2. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the Defendant’s insured vehicle’s whole part, which infringed on the virtual center line on the back side of the accident in this case. The defendant asserted that there was no fact that the Defendant insured vehicle invadedd the virtual center line, and that even if the course of the Defendant’s insured vehicle was invaded by the virtual center around the shock time of the operation of the narrow road, the above situation should be sufficiently considered. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff, even though he had a duty of care to avoid the Defendant’s insured vehicle coming from the front line, was negligent by neglecting the duty of care to avoid the Defendant’s insured vehicle coming from the front bank, which caused the accident in this case.

According to the above facts and macroscopic images installed on the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff up to the day immediately before the occurrence of the instant accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff did not seem to have seen from the view of the vehicle in progress in accordance with the direction of bend at the right side of the said road; the Defendant’s insured vehicle was able to see and proceed to the left side by breaking the opposite vehicle over a considerable part of the virtual opposite vehicle at that time; and the Defendant’s insured vehicle is proceeding.