1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B dump trucks (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. Around 08:00 on September 22, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle, along the four-lanes as well as the side road located in Switzerland 2219, to enter the right side of the Defendant vehicle, bypassing the right side of the vehicle to enter from the side road of the road in the form of TW, and shocked into the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle into the right side of the Defendant vehicle with a 3-4 stiffs on the right side of the Defendant vehicle.

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

By November 24, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 253,000 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred by the driver of the defendant's vehicle who made a right-hand side without properly examining the blind spot on the side road, while the defendant claimed that the accident in this case occurred by the driver of the defendant's vehicle who made a right-hand side without properly examining the blind zone on the side road, but the accident in this case was waiting to be left on the left-hand side by calculating the back-side radius, but the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle brought the vehicle in this case to the right-hand side of the defendant's vehicle

3. The following circumstances recognized based on the above facts acknowledged and the evidence revealed earlier, namely, a side road in the atmosphere of the Defendant vehicle is a road in the form of a vehicle and a Twit line, without distinction of the lanes, and thus, it seems that the Plaintiff vehicle driver could have sufficiently anticipated that the Defendant vehicle will be bypass. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff vehicle is a prior vehicle, and rather is not waiting to the right side of the Defendant vehicle, a large dump truck, but rather waiting to the right side of the Defendant vehicle.