1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with A with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with C with respect to the vehicle D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On June 18, 2014, around 17:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeds three lanes in front of “F” located in Daegu Northern-gu E, Daegu-gu, and the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving the two-lane of the said road, conflicts between the chief side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the left-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 440,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to A as insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 5, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The instant accident that caused the Plaintiff’s claim is changing the two lanes from the two lanes to the three lanes from the Defendant’s vehicle.

Since it was caused by the total negligence of Defendant 1’s vehicle, the Defendant is obliged to pay 440,000 won and damages for delay, which are the full repair cost, to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the previous negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by changing the lane from one’s own three lanes to two lanes without manipulating the direction light, while the Defendant’s vehicle was normally driving along the two lanes, and the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s fault, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. Determination

A. The facts acknowledged earlier, and the following facts revealed in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings, i.e., the chief aspect of the defendant vehicle and the left-hand part of the plaintiff vehicle due to the instant accident, are damaged, and ii).