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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an automobile mutual aid business operator who entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to B buses (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. At around 23:50 on December 4, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle stopped in the two-lanes of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul and tried to change the vehicle to a one-lane, starting from the point where the vehicle stopped in the two-lanes of the Seodaemun-gu, Seodaemun-gu, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul to get passengers on and off the bus at the stop.

C. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle running along the same lane of the above road (hereinafter “victim”) discovered the Defendant’s vehicle’s entry into the same lane and was parked rapidly, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the damaged vehicle was parked as it was.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

During the period from the date of the instant accident to May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 12,590,00 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 15,170,00 for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, KRW 5,827,580 for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, and KRW 33,587,580 for the treatment cost of D (= KRW 12,590,00 for the KRW 15,170,00 for the KRW 5,827,580 for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant vehicle attempted to change the vehicle's own vehicle from the two-lanes to the one-lanes without operating direction direction, etc., and as a result, the damaged vehicle's rapid stop, resulting in the accident of this case where the damaged vehicle was caused by the plaintiff vehicle. The negligence of the defendant vehicle is 50%. 2) The accident of this case is caused by the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle that violated the duty of electric watching and the duty of maintaining safety distance in the speed of the vehicle and the negligence of the damaged vehicle that caused the rapid stop without any special reason. The defendant vehicle is a stop.