1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff ordering additional payment shall be revoked.

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 24, 2015, around 22:42, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding along a three-lane road in front of the white-dong, U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S. P., on the one hand, along the three-lane road. However, the Defendant’s vehicle, while changing the vehicle from the two-lane to the one-lane, conflict with the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

Until May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 11,600,000 in the name of the repair cost, and KRW 3,000 in the injury insurance amount, and claimed KRW 2,100,000 in the injury insurance amount from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle that had changed the car line on his own, and the Defendant asserts that the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle that caused the instant accident, without predicting the change of the car line on his own, the Defendant also asserted that the instant accident was caused by the negligence that caused the instant accident by narrowing the distance between the two by speeding the signal of the front line to the ongoing signal.

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was running normally from before the intersection reaches the intersection, while the Defendant’s vehicle, without taking all measures necessary for the change of the vehicle’s lane, has driven from the two lanes to the two lanes, and again, has attempted to change the vehicle’s lane from the first lane to the second lane, and has caused the instant accident, and the Defendant’s vehicle has reduced its speed due to the front line signalling vehicle at the time of changing the vehicle’s lane to the first lane.