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

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”).

Defendant Insured Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Vehicle”)

CAround 14:47 December 31, 2017 at the time of CD and at around 14:47, the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was holding a four-lane of the collision situation in the area of entry into the main road into the main road of the Seoul metropolitan circulation road (on a day between the main road and the main road), has no dispute over the payment of the insurance proceeds in conflict with the back portion of the Defendant’s vehicle stopped in the course from three-lane to four-lanes on the right-hand part, and 7,860,90 won for the payment of the insurance proceeds in conflict with the left-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and 50,000 won for self-employed loss of the self-employed vehicle (based on recognition), Gap’s evidence No. 1 through 6, Eul’s evidence No. 1 (including each number

2. Determination

A. In full view of all the circumstances, including the fact of the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle, the background of the accident, the degree of conflict and shock, and the purport of the entire evidence presented above, it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle is 50: 50.

① At the instant accident site, the Defendant’s vehicle was in the vicinity of the entry section of the main road of the Seoul metropolitan circulation road (in the direction of U.S.) and was in the situation where the entry section was set to the said U.S. while moving into the said U.S. at the last four lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was driving a four-lane, did not avoid the discovery of the Defendant’s vehicle and did not conflict with the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle with the front part of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

② First of all, even though the Defendant had already entered the above access road on the fourth line road in which the vehicles are running, in the absence of any inevitable reason, such as the prevention of danger, etc., it appears that the said vehicle was stopped on the fourth lane to re-enter.