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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the mutual aid insurer of B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 22, 2015, at around 19:35, the Defendant’s vehicle opened Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and changed its course to the third-party line while driving the fourth-party line on the street, the Defendant’s vehicle shocked the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the third-party line on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle with the front side penter and the rear penter part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On October 21, 2015, with respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,780,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, Eul 1 to 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the occurrence of liability for damages and the recognition of each of the above limitations, the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who neglected the duty of the front-time care and the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who changed the front-time vehicle without properly examining the progress of the plaintiff vehicle. It is reasonable to view that the rate of negligence was 20:80, considering the circumstances recognized earlier, such as the occurrence of the accident in this case.

B. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,224,00 (=2,780,000 x 0.8) and the damages for delay calculated by applying each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from October 22, 2015 to February 10, 2017, which is the date when the Defendant rendered a substantial judgment on the existence or scope of the obligation to pay the repair cost to the Plaintiff.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is claimed.