1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicles”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to C-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicles”).

B. On February 4, 2017, around 08:58, an accident occurred between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding to the right from the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) that had been directly engaged in flying along the remote distance near the scambling point in Ansan-si, an accident occurred (hereinafter “instant accident”). Since then, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was able to receive Dpoter (hereinafter “victim”) (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. According to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,183,600 as the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, and KRW 3,985,270 as the medical expenses and the amount agreed upon by the driver of the victimized vehicle, and paid KRW 7,168,870 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above-mentioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, at the time of the instant accident No. 1, caused the instant accident by violating the Intersection signal, and the driver’s fault by the Defendant vehicle driver was the primary cause of the instant accident.

On the other hand, the second accident of this case caused the occurrence of the accident, even though the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle in the column of the accident of this case should stop the balc pedal, it did not follow the balc pedal pedal, and instead mistakenly fabricated the steering gear.

Considering the overall circumstances revealed in the pleadings, such as the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, the details of the fault of the driver and the driver of the original and the Defendant vehicle, the damaged parts of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the damaged vehicle, etc., it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle to 30:70.

Therefore, the defendant is therefore the plaintiff of this case.