A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

나. 피고 차량 운전자는 2016. 5. 28. 14:35경 광명시 소하동 기아대교 편도 3차선 도로 중 2차로를 진행하다가 도로공사로 인하여 3차로가 2차로와 합쳐지는 ㅏ자형 교차로 지점(이하 ‘이 사건 사고 지점’이라 한다)에서 1차로로 차선을 변경하려다가 1차로를 진행하던 원고 차량의 우측 앞 휀더 부분을 피고 차량의 좌측 앞 휀더 부분으로 충격하는 사고(이하 ‘이 사건 사고’라 한다)가 발생하였다.

C. On January 23, 2017, the Defendant paid insurance money of KRW 905,950 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thereafter filed a request for deliberation against the Plaintiff to the Deliberation Committee on the Settlement of Disputes over Claims for Compensation (hereinafter “Deliberation Committee”). The Deliberation Committee decided the ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle to KRW 3:7 on January 23, 2017, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 271,780 to the Defendant on February 17, 2017 (= KRW 905,950 x 30%).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry or video of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case is normally carried out by the driver of the plaintiff vehicle in the first lane, and the defendant vehicle was caused by the improper change of course, and thus, the defendant should return the insurance proceeds paid by the plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle is at least 30% of the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle without considering the progress of the defendant vehicle at the location of the accident in this case, which is the bottled section where the three-lanes and the two-lanes are combined.

B. (1) Each evidence mentioned above and the judgment.