1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract for the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and D vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract for the vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle into three lanes near the body of the two-lanes on the border road in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seoul, changed the course to two-lanes, and the front right part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding on the two-lanes on the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked into the left part of the Plaintiff’

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

Due to the instant accident, 3,960,000 won (i.e., the Defendant’s payment amounting to KRW 3,460,000) was paid to the repair company as the repair cost, after exchanging the wheelchairs in front of the front and the right edge of the Defendant’s vehicle, and repairing the seals in front of the right edges.

The FF Committee decided 80% of the negligence of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor in relation to the instant accident and 20% of the negligence of the Defendant’s driver. Accordingly, on February 26, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,168,000 as the amount of indemnity to the Defendant (= KRW 3,960,000 + 80%).

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, evidence 8-1, 2, 9, each of the statements or images of Eul evidence 1 to 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Among the repairs performed by the Plaintiff as to the Defendant’s alleged vehicle, the replacement of the front driver during the repair process constitutes excessive repair. Wheel chairs exchanges on the right side are not damaged by the instant accident, but for the part damaged by the king, so there is no proximate causal relation with the instant accident, and thus, it should be excluded from the appropriate repair cost. The reasonable repair cost in proximate causal relation with the instant accident is 913,000 won, and thus corresponds to 80% of the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.