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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with B, which contains a special agreement on indemnity against non-insurance motor vehicle, with respect to his/her own C motor vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”).

B. On April 25, 2014, the Defendant driving a D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving at around 22:10 on April 25, 2014, according to one lane, which is the internship between five lanes in the direction of the intersection distance in the direction of the intersection distance from the vehicle in the direction of the intersection distance.

In the course of changing the two-lanes into two-lanes, the left-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle, which proceeded with the two-lanes, was caused by an accident that shocks the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle into the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

On July 4, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,155,000 as insurance money, including the Plaintiff’s automobile repair cost of KRW 2,800,000 and the loan cost of KRW 355,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, video, purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the occurrence of liability for damages and the recognition of the limitation as above, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence that the defendant neglected his duty of care to safely drive while changing the lane from the internship to the moving lane, and neglected his duty of care to safely drive. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by B due to the accident of this case.

However, as the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, the driver did not perform his duty of safe driving to prevent the collision in advance by closely examining the behavior of driving the defendant vehicle entering the vehicle by changing the lane from the left side, and such negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle also caused the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of damages. In full view of all circumstances such as the circumstances of the accident in this case, it is reasonable to see that the negligence ratio of the accident in this case of the plaintiff vehicle is 20%.

(b) Scope of compensation for damage;