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

1. Basic facts

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

B. A, around 11:55 on October 13, 2015, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle into a 1039 optical high-speed intersection (hereinafter “instant intersection”) in opticalyang-si, Gwangju-si, and driving the said vehicle into one lane among three-lane roads, and then, it conflicts with Defendant Obane of the D Driving who entered the said vehicle at the time from three-lane to one-lane.

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

On January 25, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 1,116,00 to A at its repair cost.

At the time of the accident, D was in the state of unauthorized license.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, Eul evidence No. 2 (including provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's previous negligence on the part of defendant Oral Ba inasmuch as the defendant Oral Ba proceeding from three lanes to one lane, and the difference with the plaintiff's vehicle was caused. The defendant asserts that the negligence of the defendant Oral Ba should be limited to 60% since the plaintiff's vehicle neglected the duty of the front-time care at the time of the accident and the accident occurred.

B. As a driver of an automobile operating on a road, it is common to believe that other vehicles normally maintain and proceed with the vehicle line, barring special circumstances.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the accident of this case is one-time negligence of Defendant Obane driver in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the health stand in this case and the evidence as seen earlier.