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

1. In the fact that the Plaintiff is recognized, with respect to the A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 1”), is the insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant 2”); and the Defendant Matz Fire Marine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 1”); and the aforementioned Defendant 1 and the Defendant 2 together “Defendant 2”).

Attached Form

The accident site medicine also refers to the vehicles of Defendant 1, the vehicles of Defendant 2, and the vehicles of Defendant 2, and the vehicles of Ma3, respectively.

As seen above, Defendant 2, as of May 13, 2017, went straight along the two-lanes between the two-lanes in the access road section adjacent to the 626-10 road in the vicinity of the 626-10 road in the city of Kimhae on May 13, 2017, entered the road as one-lane in order to discover Defendant 1, who enters the above road from the right side of the road, and avoid this, enter the road into the left side by straighting the direction into the left side. The Plaintiff 2nded the direction of Defendant 2, who entered the road as of the end of the road as above, in order to avoid the Defendant 2, who entered the above one-lane, going beyond the opposite one-lane, and dives, etc. of the central separation enclosed.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). On July 14, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15,935,900 in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident based on the security for self-vehicle damage, etc., and the insured of the Plaintiff’s vehicle bears KRW 500,000 with its own share.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the existence of the Defendants’ liability for damages and the recognition of limited liability and the purport of the entire arguments on the evidence as seen earlier, Defendant 1’s driver entered the right-hand access road into two-lanes.