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

1. At the time of the instant accident, the part of the back side of the Defendant Insured Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Vehicle”)’s insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), which was moving to the left right at the two-lane left right-hand turn among the three-lane roads according to the nature of the modification of the Sinnam-si at the place around October 11:53, 2019 at the time of the instant accident, and the part of the side side of the Plaintiff Insured Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), which was moving to the right-hand right-hand side of the Plaintiff Insured Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), which was moving to the first-lane, is the fact that there is no dispute as to November 8, 2019 on the date of the final payment of the insurance proceeds of KRW 1,758,800, the amount of the collision insurance proceeds of KRW 439,000 on the insured Party’s own contribution of KRW 439,000, Nov. 8, 2019.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The accident of this case occurred by the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that made a left turn considerably at the first lane and the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle that made a left turn rapidly on the second lane without yielding it to the Plaintiff’s vehicle that is the preceding vehicle.

Therefore, the percentage of negligence should be 50:50.

B. The instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving in violation of the tram’s display on one lane.

Therefore, the instant accident was caused by the total negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle.

3. In full view of the reasoning of the evidence revealed earlier, the instant accident occurred by the negligence between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver, and it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio is 80 U.S. Defendant 20 on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The reasons are as follows.

① The Plaintiff’s act of driving straight along the Plaintiff’s vehicle in violation of the one-lane method, which is the left left-hand turn, became the main cause of the instant accident (the Plaintiff was making a left-hand turn at the time of the accident).

However, at the time, the plaintiff's vehicle did not turn on the left-hand direction, etc., and did not turn on the left-hand turn in light of the proceeding distance or direction.

(2) However, the Plaintiff is difficult to view.