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 (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff vehicle") shall be the insured vehicle.

Defendant’s insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”).

CTemporary D On September 10, 2018, around 15:03, 15:03 at the place of Gwangju-dong, Gwangju-dong, each entry or image of the following items: (a) and the purport of the entire pleadings: (b) the payment of insurance proceeds to the front left-hand part of the Defendant vehicle, which is bypassing from the fourth lane and the lower-hand part of the Plaintiff vehicle’s vehicle, which is bypassing from the fourth lane, into the third lane; (c) there is no dispute over the payment of insurance proceeds; (d) there is evidence No. 1 through 5; (d) evidence No. 7; (e) evidence No. 8; and (e) evidence No. 1 through No. 4 (including the serial number); and (e) the purport of the whole oral pleadings:

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties' assertion is that the plaintiff sought a reimbursement of the full amount of the insurance money that the plaintiff paid to the defendant on the ground that the accident of this case occurred by one's negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle, while the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred by negligence that the plaintiff's vehicle did not yield a concession, so

B. According to the evidence 1, in particular, evidence Nos. 7 and evidence Nos. 8, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is making a bypass while keeping its own lanes at the fourth lane. While the Defendant’s vehicle is a bypass at the third lane, the accident of this case occurred as the Defendant’s vehicle was invaded by the fourth lane. At the time when the Defendant’s vehicle is shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is driving ahead of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle is making a bypass at the time of shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle, so it is impossible for the Plaintiff’s driver to take measures to prevent the accident due to the failure to exhaust the vehicle.

In light of such circumstances and all other circumstances revealed in the pleading, the instant accident is the Defendant’s vehicle that neglected the duty to maintain the tea in the course of changing the course.