1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order for payment shall be revoked, and

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. At around 18:20 on December 6, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle proceeded slowly along a two-lane in southwest-gu Seoul Central District, Seoul Central District, along the front vehicle, and ceased in accordance with the new subparagraph. After the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeds along the left-hand safety area of the Defendant’s vehicle, the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was live in the front side between the Defendant’s vehicle and the front vehicle. The front part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front side of the Plaintiff’s right-hand side conflict with each other after the front vehicle proceeds along the front vehicle pursuant to the new subparagraph.

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

On December 22, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 637,540 (excluding self-charges 200,000) for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including branch numbers) or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s total negligence by the Defendant’s driver as it conflicts with the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that the Defendant’s vehicle changed from the two-lane to the one-lane, and the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the said KRW 637,540 as indemnity, and the damages for delay thereof. (ii) The instant accident was normally proceeding with the Defendant’s vehicle, depending on the traffic of the front vehicle. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was committed by the Plaintiff’s total negligence as it was caused by the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s vehicle’s attempt to enter between the Defendant’s vehicle and the front vehicle through the safety zone of the first lane.