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. On August 30, 2018, at the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds to the fronter of the Plaintiff’s right line and the backer part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s left side line (hereinafter “instant accident”) on October 25, 2018, when the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s insured vehicle”) moved to two lanes between three lanes, as indicated in the field map of the collision in front of the G company located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, at the location of the G company, on August 30, 2018, while the Defendant insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s insured vehicle”) moved to two lanes between three lanes and two lanes, and the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff’s insured on October 25, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 11, 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident occurred due to one’s unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was rapidly stopped during the course from three lanes to two lanes. (2) The gist of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant’s vehicle did not rapidly stop during the course change, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was negligent in failing to perform the duty of Jeonju, even though the Defendant’s vehicle in the front bank could sufficiently see that the Defendant’s vehicle in the front bank could change the course from three lanes to two lanes.

Therefore, the accident in this case occurred concurrently between the negligence of the defendant vehicle and the plaintiff vehicle.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant accident may be deemed to have occurred due to concurrent occurrence of the negligence between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle. A) First, whether the Defendant’s vehicle was negligent or not.