2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle CM7 (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 08:10 on January 19, 2017, D driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the front side of the Plaintiff’s right side to the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, depending on one lane among the two-lane roads of Sinsan-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. However, the Defendant’s following vehicle was changed to the two-lane, but the latter changed to the two-lane, and then changed to the two-lane, the vehicle turned to the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 1,124,80 to D in relation to D, which is the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 758,060,00 in total, including KRW 700,00 in the amount agreed on January 25, 2017; KRW 75,070 in the amount agreed on February 16, 2017; KRW 349,730 in the amount of medical expenses; and KRW 1,124,80 in the amount of the insurance proceeds of KRW 349,730 in the amount of medical expenses to the Franchisian on February 22, 2017; ② in relation to A, who is the insured of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 700,000 in the amount of the insurance proceeds of KRW 58,060 in the amount of the repair expenses of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 9, 10, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Gap evidence 8-1 through 3, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The accident in this case is one of the main arguments of the parties, and the driver of the defendant vehicle used the two lanes and did not turn on the direction direction, etc. for the purpose of overtaking from the right side of the plaintiff vehicle and took place in the future of the plaintiff vehicle.