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

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A, at the time of the insured vehicle A, on January 23, 2016 at the time of the insured vehicle B, the insured vehicle A, at the time of the accident, was moved into two lanes from the Defendant insured vehicle B, to the point where the collision situation near the area of the wastewater in the front of North Korea, which occurred in the middle of the first lane, the insured vehicle prior to the second two lanes in the middle of the first lane, and entered the first lane, but the insured vehicle was 14,108,000,000 (based on recognition) for the insured vehicle and shock insurance payment to prevent the two lanes again, the insured vehicle’s self-payment charges of 50,000 [the ground for recognition] of the insured vehicle for self-payment of the insured vehicle for self-determination of the insured vehicle for self-determination of the insured vehicle for self-determination of the insured vehicle for self-determination of the

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s insured vehicle, and claimed KRW 5,843,200 from the total insurance money paid by the Plaintiff, deducted the remainder of KRW 8,264,80 from the amount of the insurance money paid by the Defendant, and damages for delay from the day following the payment date. The Defendant asserted that there was negligence on the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle driver.

In light of all the circumstances, such as the background of the above recognition and the background of the accident, the degree of conflict and shock, etc., it is reasonable to see that the negligence of the plaintiff's insured vehicle and the defendant's insured vehicle in this case is 37:7.

We do not accept both of these arguments.

Next, I examine the scope of indemnity.

The plaintiff's insurance proceeds of this case are paid on the basis of self-vehicle damage security, and self-vehicle damage security has the nature of consideration for insurance premiums paid by the insurer up to the time of occurrence of the insurance accident. It is separate from the liability to compensate for damages borne by the defendant's insured vehicle. The plaintiff has not compensated for the part of the amount corresponding to the insured's own share out of the amount of damages of this case.