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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On April 2, 2018, around 17:32, the occurrence of a traffic accident in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocks the Defendant’s vehicle at the third-lane of the road along the Seoul direction-based free from the location of the Goyang-gu, Seoyang-gu.

교통사고 발생 당시 위 도로의 3차로에 있던 다수의 차량이 정체로 서행 중이었고, 별지 사고 사진과 같이 원고 차량은 방향지시등을 켠 상태에서 위 도로의 4차로에서 3차로로 합류를 시도하여 원고 차량의 운전석 부분 일부가 3차로로 이미 진입한 상태였으나, 3차로를 직진으로 진행하고 있던 피고 차량은 계속 직진하여 원고 차량을 충격하였다.

C. On April 10, 2018, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, due to the foregoing traffic accident, paid KRW 915,400, after deducting KRW 228,00 of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from KRW 1,143,400.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 9, Eul evidence 2, 3, 4, and 6 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the background leading up to the occurrence of the above traffic accident, the negligence of the driver and the driver of the original and the defendant vehicle caused the traffic accident, and the ratio of the fault liability is 30:70.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 640,780 won (=915,400 won x 70%) equivalent to 70% of the above insurance proceeds and delay damages.

B. According to the facts of the recognition of the Plaintiff’s liability for damages and the evidence revealed earlier, since part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle had entered the three-lanes of the said road at the time of the occurrence of the said accident, the Defendant’s vehicle neglected the Plaintiff’s duty of front-time and safe driving, even though it should have given way to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, thereby satisfying the Plaintiff’s vehicle.