1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), Defendant Insured Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”), CD temporary 00:05 October 15, 2018, when the situation of the collision in front of the Fridge in Gwangju Mine-gu, where the Plaintiff’s vehicle located in Gwangju Mine-gu, left two-lanes in the front of the foregoing location as the front of the foregoing location of the vehicle, and the front side of the Plaintiff’s self-paid vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s front side in the new post office in G in accordance with the new letter where the two-lanes of the two-lanes in the front of the foregoing location are straight, and the two-lanes in the front of the foregoing intersection are damaged by the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle, which had turned to the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front side of the Defendant vehicle. The amount of the insurance proceeds is KRW 500,000

B. In deliberating on the instant accident on March 11, 2019 upon the Defendant’s request, the H Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”) deemed the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 20:80, and determined that the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant KRW 959,800 (the total amount of damages is the total amount of damages as indicated in the “applicant’s total amount of payment,” but the Defendant paid KRW 4,299,300, which is the remainder of the amount of damages limited. The Defendant paid KRW 4,29,300, out of the said amount of damages (hereinafter “instant decision”).

C. On April 2, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 859,860 won (4,299,300 won x 20%) equivalent to 20% of the Defendant’s insurance amount (i.e., KRW 4,799,300-500) other than the Defendant’s insurance amount (i.e., KRW 4,299,300 x 20%).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 11, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The location where the instant accident occurred;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the defendant vehicle, which had been significantly negligent in performing his duty of care while conducting a non-protection task, and thus, the plaintiff paid the defendant according to the ratio of negligence set forth in the decision in this case 859.