1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”).

Defendant Insured Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Vehicle”)

C On February 8, 2018, around 14:15, Feb. 8, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the situation of collision in the vicinity of the Shodong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si was in progress two lanes. The Defendant’s vehicle, while waiting for the left-hand turn at one lane, has changed the course to two lanes, and the Defendant’s vehicle, while paying the insurance proceeds to the front part of the right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the lower part of the lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was 1,528,000 won, was in front of the left-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle, without dispute (based on recognition) over the insured’s self-paid vehicle loss charge of KRW 382,00 won (if there is no dispute on the ground of recognition), Gap’s number 1 through 6,8, and Eul’s number 1 through

2. Determination

A. In full view of all the circumstances, such as the fact of the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle, the background of the accident shown in the records, the degree of conflict and shock, and the overall purport of the evidence evidence as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle as 10: 90.

① At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle was waiting to turn to the left at one lane, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding in the same direction at the rear side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

② Under the foregoing circumstances, in order for Defendant vehicle to change its course to a two-lane, it should be ensured that the traffic situation in the two-lane is well examined so that it does not obstruct the passage of the vehicle driving on the two-lane, and even though the Defendant sent a signal on the change of course due to the direction point and time, the Defendant used a direction direction device of Defendant vehicle on-off. However, according to the video of the evidence No. 5, it is not on-and-off at the time that the direction direction of Defendant vehicle