1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 10,945,90 against the Plaintiff regarding the Defendant and its related amount, from April 20, 2018 to June 12, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a car insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 4, 2018, around 01:59, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E from the wall of F apartment distance to the wall of G elementary school, and was passing through the intersection of the private distance in front of G elementary school located between E and H.

At this time, the Defendant’s vehicle was driving at H, and there was an accident where the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are shocked (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On April 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 19,060,00,000, which is the insurance money of the instant accident, to the effect that the said repair cost exceeded the vehicle value stated in the insurance policy, while returning the remainder amount of KRW 2,363,00,00, based on the insurance money of the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is solely based on the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 16,697,00 for indemnity (=19,060,000 - 2,363,000) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence between the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver, and the negligence ratio is 30% large of 70%, and the value of the Plaintiff’s vehicle is 18,000,000 won.

Therefore, it does not exceed 10,945,900 won [(18,00,000 won - 2,363,000 won] x 0.7] that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 3, and 4, and all of the arguments and arguments, there was an error at the time of the instant accident and new walls.