1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 6, 2017, at around 05:30, the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the vehicle line to a two-lane in order to overtake the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the first lane at a point of 102.9km in the vicinity of the development quarter of the parallel of the Highway between Young-Seoul and Daejeon (hereinafter “instant accident”) but the Defendant’s vehicle driving on the first lane changed to a two-lane without turning on the direction direction, etc., the instant accident occurred in order to avoid the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving the first lane at a point of time, and driving the vehicle ahead of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 494,150 to the Korea Highway Corporation, which is the manager of the said expressway, for expenses for restoring dives caused by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or images of Gap evidence 1 to 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred while changing the vehicle line without using the direction direction, etc. by the defendant vehicle's negligence. Thus, as to 494,150 won paid by the plaintiff to the defendant who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the plaintiff acquired the right to indemnity against the defendant who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, the defendant is liable to pay it to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant vehicle has already completed the change of the vehicle line into two lanes, and that the plaintiff vehicle was found late to find it late and that the hand-on was unable to properly enjoy it, and that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant vehicle.

3. Determination

A. We examine the occurrence of the right to indemnity, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the aforementioned evidence, i.e., the accident immediately before the instant accident.