1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On April 13, 2017, at around 02:39, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the two-lanes of the five-lane road in front of the C in front of the Shii-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Sungnam-si, into the lusular village shooting distance, and changed the two-lanes from the two-lane to the three-lane to make a right-hand line, the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked the part front of the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle running along the three-lanes of the same road to the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle was pushed down to the right-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle was installed on the right-hand side of the Defendant’s front-hand part of the road, and there was an accident in which the Korea Electric Power Corporation, which

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

On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 7,533,160 to the Korea Electric Power Corporation as compensation for damage caused by the instant accident.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion that the accident in this case occurred due to the change of the driver's lane, but the driver of the defendant vehicle also has the duty of care to drive and defend the plaintiff vehicle with the direction, etc. and to prevent the accident. Thus, in the accident in this case, the driver's fault ratio of the defendant vehicle in this case is about 30%.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who changed the lane in front of the defendant vehicle.

3. The above findings of the judgment and the evidence as seen earlier.