1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

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

On March 30, 2014, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A, at the time of the insured vehicle A and around 10:00 on March 30, 2014 at the time of the accident, has changed the course from two to three lanes in front of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government road collision situation (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) and the front part of the Defendant’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”), which was proceeding at the three-lane of the above road, has paid shock insurance proceeds to the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the front part of the Defendant’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) which was proceeding at the three-lane of the said road, has not been disputed, and there is no dispute over: Gap’s 1,2,3,6 evidence, Eul’s 1,2, and 4 (including the serial number) and the purport of the entire pleadings, images, and arguments.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the accident in this case is one of the joint tort caused by the mistake of the Defendant vehicle driver, who neglected the duty of front-time care without securing the safety distance, and the degree of contribution to the accident in this case by the Plaintiff vehicle driver and the Defendant vehicle driver is 70:30 in light of the circumstances of the accident in this case.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff and the Defendant were jointly relieved of liability upon paying the insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 2,422,510 (=8,075,050 x 30%) to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred from the unilateral negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver who neglected the duty of care at the time of career change, and thus, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity.

3. The driver of any motor vehicle who intends to change the course of the motor vehicle shall not change the course when it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to change the course of the motor vehicle (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). In light of the above recognition, the accident in this case is just the way that the motor vehicle is running.