1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,978,400 as well as 5% per annum from September 19, 2015 to July 5, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 5, 2015, around 14:32, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle sent straight along the three lanes in front of the BMW store located in Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, according to the three lanes on the road in front of the BMW store, and shocked the Defendant’s vehicle moving from the two lanes to the three lanes.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On September 18, 2015, the Plaintiff paid 39,973,000 won in total to the insured C, etc. according to the insurance contract.

The Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for deliberation on self-compensation by the committee for deliberation on disputes over reimbursement of automobile insurance (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”). On November 16, 2015, the Deliberation Committee decided on the amount to be deliberated and decided at 20% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 80% of the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including branch numbers, if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and sought payment of the total insurance money already paid against the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, by asserting that the instant accident occurred.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle driven along the two lanes behind the defendant's vehicle, and the plaintiff's vehicle was rapidly changed to the three lanes to overtake the defendant's vehicle, and the accident of this case occurred due to the direct fault in contravention of the vehicle, so the plaintiff's request cannot be complied with.

3. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts of the judgment, the facts of the recognition, and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, namely, ① the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the two-lane behind the Defendant’s vehicle, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle is already three-lane prior to the instant accident.