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

1. The plaintiff is the owner of the C-wheeled Vehicle (the model name: ZR100 Form 1995 Form, hereinafter "the plaintiff's vehicle"), and the defendant is the mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement on D-si (hereinafter "the defendant's vehicle").

On October 27, 2018, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on October 27, 2018, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle along the two-lane of the two-lane road in the Dobong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, in the middle-distance basin from the middle-distance bank to the middle-lane bank, and moving the two-lane to the middle-lane. At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle in the Roman-gu changed the two-lane to the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear side of the Defendant’s vehicle, in order to board passengers who suffered losses at India, conflict with the front side of the vehicle and the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). By February 13, 2019, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1,547,330 for the medical expenses and the amount agreed upon due to the instant accident.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 11 evidence, each entry and video of evidence Eul 1 and 4]

2. According to the grounds of liability and the above facts, the driver of the defendant vehicle has neglected his duty of care to drive the vehicle safely so as not to impede the passage of the vehicle behind behind the vehicle, and thus, the driver of the defendant vehicle has been negligent in changing the lane automatically and rapidly stopped, and such negligence caused the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the property damage suffered by the plaintiff as a mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle due to the

However, it is deemed that the accident could have been avoided if the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, would have been safely driven by taking into account the movement of the defendant vehicle in the front section. Thus, the accident in this case occurred by the principal negligence of the driver of the vehicle and the plaintiff's negligence. Thus, the defendant's responsibility is limited to 80% in consideration of such circumstances.

3. Scope of compensation.

A. The plaintiff's vehicle repair cost: 2,250,000 won is 9,101,336 won as the repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle.