The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

The costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal are individually counted.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. On November 8, 2019, the Defendant driven a D Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Motor Vehicle”) around 15:55, and changed the course to a three-lanes through a two-lanes while driving along the one-lane north of the river north of the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and received the back part of the Plaintiff’s left side of the Plaintiff Motor Vehicle followed from the three-lanes.

(c)

On December 23, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 10,457,000 won for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (i.e., total repair cost of KRW 10,670,000 - self-paid cost of KRW 213,00) to the repair company in accordance with the said insurance contract’s special agreement as security for self-motor vehicle damage.

[Grounds for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1-10, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Defendant caused the instant accident due to the mistake that the movement of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was proceeding in the latter part of the three lanes, by combining the two lanes from the first lane to the three lanes, was not properly examined. As such, most of the negligence in the instant accident lies in the Defendant.

다만 원고차량 운전자도 당시 방향지시 등을 켠 상태인 피고차량이 3 차로로 진로변경 하려는 것을 알 수 있었는데도 전방 주시를 다소 게을리 한 잘못이 있으므로, 이 사건 사고에 관하여 20% 정도의 과실이 있다.

B. The defendant asserts that excessive repair costs were paid at the cost of replacement of parts, although the plaintiff vehicle merely suffered minor damage.

However, according to the evidence evidence No. 8-11, it is recognized that the degree of damage to the Plaintiff’s vehicle is not less than that of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thus, it is necessary to replace the parts, and otherwise, the Plaintiff paid the excessive repair cost.

Since there is no sufficient evidence to view it, the defendant's assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion, the Defendant: (a) KRW 8,323,00 for indemnity (=8,536,000 for repair costs of the Plaintiff’s vehicle + KRW 10,670,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle ¡¿ KRW 80 per cent of the Defendant’s fault ratio) to the Plaintiff; (b) KRW 213,00 for self-payment.