1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to a car in C Camp (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to Dsi (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 11, 2018, at around 12:46, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was straighted in the same direction in the same direction as the Plaintiff’s vehicle while proceeding along the two lanes on the roads of the Fridges Association located in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and the two lanes among the two lanes.

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

By December 11, 2018, the Plaintiff paid each of the insurance proceeds of KRW 1,077,920 with the medical expenses and the amount agreed upon by the passenger G of the Defendant vehicle, and KRW 771,050 with the medical expenses and the amount agreed upon by the Plaintiff’s driver’s H by December 18, 2018, and KRW 925,000 with the repair expenses of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (excluding KRW 231,00 with its own charges) on December 13, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. In the event that the Plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the Plaintiff’s assertion is changed, the driver of the Defendant vehicle following the change of the vehicle would reduce the speed and sound the light, and thus, the instant accident occurred at the wind of the Defendant vehicle at a speed, and thus, the negligence of the Defendant vehicle driver is more than 30%.

B. The instant accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, since the instant accident occurred as the Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle did not keep a sufficient distance and without operating direction lights.

3. The Road Traffic Act, even though it is necessary to examine the following circumstances acknowledged by the above-mentioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., (i) whether the change of course would interfere with the normal passage of vehicles entering the direction of the change.