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

3. Of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance, paragraph (1).

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into a comprehensive automobile mutual aid contract with B-si (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On August 24, 2013, around 01:34, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driving the Defendant vehicle and proceeding the road front of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City hotel (hereinafter referred to as the “instant road”) along the three-lanes of the four-lane radius from the boundary of Samsung Central Station, and the Plaintiff vehicle driving along the four-lanes while changing the lane from the intersection to the four-lanes, and there was an accident of collision between the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle and the right side of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 702,110 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who changed the lane in the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in a white cell line where the change of lane is prohibited. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the fault ratio of the Defendant’s driver in relation to the instant accident is 90%. As such, the Defendant, a mutual aid business entity of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, 631,899 won (=702,110 won x 0.9) corresponding to the fault ratio of the Defendant’s driver among the insurance proceeds paid to the Plaintiff,

B. The instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s primary negligence by entering the Defendant’s vehicle at a narrow gap between the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle and its curb at a rapid speed, even though the Defendant showed the Defendant’s vehicle that has slowly changed the lane from the front side of the white solid line to the front side of the four lanes, and the instant accident occurred.