1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Freight Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around 09:35 on September 18, 2018, the Defendant’s vehicle was running along one lane in the direction of luminous distance from the bank in the interest area of the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in the city in which the vehicle of the Plaintiff, which was changing from the second lane of the above road to the first lane in the area in the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

After the Defendant paid 17,808,730 won for the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident (deduction of KRW 500,00,00) and claimed for deliberation to the E Council on the ground that the ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s fault in the instant accident is 100%, and the said Council decided that the ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s fault was 60%. On May 30, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,985,238 [the amount calculated by adding the repair cost and self-paid charges to the Defendant (=18,308,730 won) + KRW 17,808,730,000] x 60%].

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding the evidence mentioned above as well as the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 9 and 10 (including virtual numbers), namely, the speed of the road in which the instant accident occurred, 80 km per hour and the minimum speed of 30 km per hour. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding between the speed of 51 km and 60 km per hour due to the rapid delay of the speed for the change of the lane, while the Defendant’s vehicle was proceeding in excess of the above speed of 101 km or 110 km per hour, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately before the instant accident is sufficient to the Defendant’s vehicle.