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

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

On September 23, 2017, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff insured vehicle B at the time of the accident, and at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Defendant (hereinafter only referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”) in the situation of road collision in front of the Seoul-dong, Ulsan-dong, Commercial High School (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”) at a location of 12:30 on September 23, 2017, paid shock insurance money to the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff vehicle”) which started after stopping in the middle of the two lanes in the middle of the three lanes of the above road, and 872,00,000 won for the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle’s insured vehicle’s insured vehicle’s own charges of KRW 218,00 [based on recognition], without any dispute. The entries and images of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle of subparagraphs 1 through 6, 2, 4, 5, 6

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s negligence in relation to the instant accident was 70%, and claimed 610,400 won (=872,000 won x 70%) and damages for delay from the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff (i.e., 70%). Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral negligence.

In full view of the above facts and the road conditions at the point of the accident of this case, the accident of this case is likely to occur due to the negligence of neglecting the duty of care to safely and safely by examining the traffic conditions at the right side, in particular, the traffic conditions at the right side, and checking the safety of the course after checking the traffic conditions at the right side.

However, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who was parked in the third lane at the time has not been negligent in properly examining the movement of the defendant vehicle that entered the left-hand side into the driver's lane.