1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the Plaintiff’s failure corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

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

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) Defendant Insured Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) CD date and November 20, 2017, is as shown in the attached drawings of the three-distance collision situation in front of the office of the enclosed Eup/Myeon in the case of emulation in the location of the Dobong-gu Office at the time of the accident.

The fact that the payment of insurance proceeds is 348,900 won (as of December 7, 2017, 2017), the security self-owned vehicle damage (based on recognition), the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 5, and the purport of all pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, and the defendant asserts that 60% of the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle had occurred concurrently.

In other words, the point of accident in this case is a road where a taxi stops on the right side of the direction (it seems that no taxi has been parked on the right side at the time of the accident) and, in addition, because there is a construction section on the right side, the Plaintiff vehicle seeking to make a right-hand transfer enters a taxi stopping area and did not drive the right side of the taxi and drive it on the right side.

Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s vehicle violated the bypass method under Article 25(1) of the Road Traffic Act; ② Although the Plaintiff’s vehicle was not completely leaving the intersection, the Defendant’s vehicle is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s negligence is greater in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not have a vehicle in the taxi stop area at the time, and the accident occurred while trying to make a bypass rapidly due to the difference in the right-hand space.

However, it is reasonable to view that the ratio of the responsibility of the Plaintiff vehicle is 30%, and the ratio of the responsibility of the Defendant vehicle is 70%, since the Plaintiff vehicle driver is also driving as if he were to go directly at the accident point, and there was an error bypassing the right direction in the round display.

Therefore, the defendant acquired by subrogation the right to claim damages against the defendant.