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

The defendant shall make the plaintiff 1,868.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On February 7, 2019, around 11:05, the Plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the third-lane road in the Seogu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, in turn, tried to change the lanes into four lanes, and the Defendant’s vehicle followed from the third-lane road in order to return to the third-lane road.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”)

C. On March 22, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,868,00 as insurance proceeds for the Plaintiff’s repair expenses incurred due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The following circumstances revealed by the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was recognized as above and the evidence mentioned above, namely, ① the freight vehicle running on the three lanes and attempted to change the four lanes, but at the five lanes, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was unable to change the three lanes, thereby restoring the three lanes again. At the time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle still left three lanes in front and rear the driver’s seat, and ② even in the case of the black box image installed on the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle was in a state where the Plaintiff’s vehicle tried to change the three lanes and did not completely deviate from the three lanes, and thus, the Defendant’s vehicle tried to change the three lanes even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle might not move on the three lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle. In full view of the circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the accident of this case occurred as the failure to perform the duty to stop the vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.