1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

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

On May 11, 2017 at the time when the insured vehicle B driver’s assistant to the Plaintiff insured vehicle at the time of the accident, the collision between the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle and the Defendant’s insured vehicle at the location near the distribution station in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul at the location of May 11, 2017, conflicts between the first side of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle and the front side of the Defendant’s insured vehicle while the Defendant’s insured vehicle and the third and fourth lanes prior to the righting of the righting of the righting of the righting of the righting of the righting of the righting of the righting of the righting of the vehicle. There is no dispute over KRW 48,00 in the payment of the insurance money, KRW 1,954,00 (based on the basis of recognition), KRW 1,6,8 through 11

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s insured vehicle, and claimed the full amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff and the damages for delay from the day following the payment date. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle operator was negligent.

According to the above facts, the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of neglecting the duty of care to safely circumvent by examining the progress of the plaintiff's insured vehicle and the defendant's insured vehicle's road and vehicle's insured vehicle's moving toward the right side at the right side of the simultaneous right side. In light of all the circumstances, such as the background of the accident, the degree of conflict, and the degree of shock as indicated in the record, it is reasonable to see the negligence ratio of the plaintiff's insured vehicle and the defendant's insured vehicle in relation to the accident of this case as 5:5.

Next, I examine the scope of indemnity.

The plaintiff's insurance proceeds of this case are paid on the basis of self-vehicle damage security, and self-vehicle damage security has the nature of consideration for insurance premiums paid to the insurer by the time of the occurrence of the insurance accident by the policyholder. It is from the liability for damages borne by the defendant's insured vehicle.