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. On October 19, 2018, at the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff insured vehicle CD at the time of the occurrence of the insured vehicle, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”) in the situation of the collision near the Southern branch of Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seoul at the location of around October 19, 2018, was driven with the third vehicle and was changed to the second vehicle, and the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) was changed to the second vehicle from the first to the second vehicle, and the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff was paid the insurance premium of the accident that conflict with the Plaintiff vehicle of March 5, 2019 to the insured on March 8, 2019, the accident of this case was as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or videos of Gap's evidence 1 to 7, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver’s fault ratio, namely, the instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have changed the vehicle first, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle might have been presumed to have changed the vehicle first. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s vehicle was concealed after the Plaintiff’s change of the vehicle, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to recognize the said allegation. In light of the above, the instant accident is deemed to have occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

However, in light of the background of the accident in this case and the degree of the collision of the original defendant vehicle, it is reasonable to 20% of the negligence ratio of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and 80% of the driver's negligence ratio of the defendant vehicle.

B. In accordance with the calculation of the amount of indemnity, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant, is the Plaintiff’s vehicle owner’s subrogation of the Plaintiff’s right to claim compensation for damages: KRW 630,000 = Total amount of damages = 1,050,000 ¡¿ 80% of the negligence ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle driver x 210,000 won, and Supreme Court Decision 28 January 28, 2016.