1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,483,210 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 27, 2017 to March 22, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A regarding the vehicle volume B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with C bus vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On February 17, 2017, around 10:14, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding along the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the four-lane road in the direction of the Guro-gu, Guro-gu, Seoul, Guro-gu, Seoul, in a two-lane way, while driving the four-lane road.

A serious accident occurred in front of the right-hand part of the vehicle in front of the left-hand part of the plaintiff's vehicle, which entered the one lane (in front of the one lane).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 31,610,700 in total, including the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 31,180,000, and KRW 31,610,70 in total, on April 26, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the occurrence of liability for damages, the above recognition ratio, and the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, it is recognized that ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to make a sudden internship at the two-lanes prohibited from the U.S., ② the Defendant’s vehicle was driving along the one-lanes, and ② the Defendant’s vehicle was driving along the two-lanes, and attempted to change the two-lanes to the one-lanes while driving the median lines at the point immediately before the passage was expanded from the three-lanes to the four-lanes.

According to this, the accident of this case is judged to be concurrent with the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who tried to make a sudden internship in the second lane in which the U.S. is prohibited, and the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who tried to change the tea by partly duplicating the central line.

In addition, in light of the circumstances indicated in the arguments, such as the background of the above case, the current status of the passage, and the shock of each vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle for the instant accident.