1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, at around 02:15, August 9, 2018, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant’s insured vehicle of the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant”), at the time of the accident, changed the course to three lanes in which the Defendant’s vehicle moving into a G Station in the direction of the G Station between the four-lanes of the above location of the traffic collision in Gangnam-gu Seoul E-gu Seoul, the two-lanes in the direction of the G Station, and the part in front of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeding in the same direction. The 1,749,000 won paid insurance money in front of the right side of

B. The judgment of the first instance court judged the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle as 20:80, and calculated the Plaintiff’s amount of reimbursement as KRW 1,39,200.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 10, Eul 1, 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The location where the instant accident occurred;

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant's vehicle changed his own lane without properly verifying whether there is a vehicle driven on the lane that is intended to change without using the direction direction light. At the time, the plaintiff's vehicle as the plaintiff's vehicle was unable to predict that the defendant's vehicle driven on the right side of the vehicle was changed, and there was no time to avoid this change. Thus, the accident in this case is due to the former negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle. 2) The defendant's accident site is a construction part of the road bended by the defendant's vehicle, and the plaintiff's vehicle was given a high level of duty of care to safely drive while carefully examining the movement of the defendant vehicle.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance that considers the negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle as 20% is reasonable, since the plaintiff's vehicle does not yield the right of way to the immediately preceding accident and the speed of the vehicle also conflicts with the defendant's vehicle.

B. The entirety of the aforementioned evidence is revealed in light of the purport of the entire pleadings.