1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,742,00 and KRW 370,350 among them.

In fact, the Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as the “automobile insurance contract of this case”) with the insurance period from May 12, 2014 to May 12, 2015, with respect to the automobile C owned by B (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) under a special agreement on limited driving, etc. between the Plaintiff and B.

The defendant is a driver of a private taxi (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle").

B, around 18:30 on August 27, 2014, the wife Party E driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and tried to turn to the left and right to turn to the left in accordance with the new subparagraph, while driving the three-lane road near the intersection of the 1199-4 Slung-gu Slung-ro, the front city, the front city, the front city, and driving a three-lane road in the vicinity of the intersection of the 119-4 Slung-ro, the front city, and tried to turn to the left and right to turn to the front.

At that time, the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding following the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was operated by reporting the stop of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, but did not immediately stop the Plaintiff’s vehicle, resulting in an accident in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle was concealed as the fronter of the Defendant’s vehicle and resulting in an injury to E (hereinafter “instant accident”).

By October 24, 2014 under the instant automobile insurance contract, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 2,322,670 in total, KRW 493,80, and KRW 1,828,870 in terms of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle incurred from the instant accident and E medical treatment costs and agreement.

【Ground of recognition” without a dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 11 (including a paper number), Eul evidence 4 and 6, the purport of the whole pleading, and the plaintiff's assertion of the judgment party's argument is due to the whole negligence of the defendant, such as securing the safety distance.

However, as the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,322,670 with insurance money, the Defendant exempted the Defendant from the liability for damages, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the full amount of the above insurance money with the indemnity amount.

The main point of the defendant's argument is E-Road Traffic Act.