1. The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

A. The Defendant’s KRW 4,111,190 and KRW 3,313,124 among the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with D (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the vehicle.

B. On September 3, 2019, at around 09:20, the Defendant’s vehicle driven one lane from the two-lane road located in the air route in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, to the floating distance room on a daily basis, along that of the two-lane road located in the tunnel below the ICT Highway, and turned the front section into the two-lane road. The vehicle stopped from the front section to the two-lane. The Defendant’s vehicle driven into the rear section of the road.

E Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “victimed Vehicle”) were fixed, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the damaged vehicle failed to stop, which led to shocking the back of the damaged vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”).

According to the instant accident, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle sustained injury, such as brain dead, etc. equivalent to the 12th grade (the maximum insurance amount of KRW 1,200,00) out of the injured class of the attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Guarantee of Automobile Damage Compensation Act (attached Table 1), and accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff’s driver KRW 1,190,00 with the agreed amount around September 11, 2019 (i.e., the injury amount of KRW 590,140,000 for the total of KRW 590,140,000 for the total of KRW 502,010 for the medical expenses on October 11, 2019 (=1,692,010 for the total of KRW 1,190,000 for the compensation amount of KRW 502,010 for the medical expenses on October 11, 2019).

(d)

From September 26, 2019 to October 31, 2019, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 8,282,810 as compensation for damages to the driver of the damaged vehicle.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred while changing the course of the Defendant’s vehicle in a tunnel where it is impossible for the Defendant to change the course, and thus, at least 50% of the Defendant’s fault should be recognized.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff's vehicle and damaged vehicle.