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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B-si (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B-si.

B. On November 7, 2016, around 19:40 on November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle tried to enter the front road of the Sindo Sea Network apartment in front of the Sinsidong, along the first lane in the direction of the Sinsi apartment in the direction of the monthly name tunnel, into the right-hand left-hand way, and changed the lane into the first lane. The Defendant’s vehicle immediately before the change from the second lane to the first one, and there was an accident of collision between the left door of the Defendant’s vehicle and the right-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

Due to the instant accident, C, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and D, E, who was injured by each passenger, and the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 4,435,260 in total to C until January 24, 2017, except for the insurance proceeds under a special contract in accordance with the Automobile Injury Security Act, and KRW 491,460 in total to D, and KRW 5,136,210 in total to E, respectively.

Specific details and methods of paying insurance proceeds shall be as specified in attached Form.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving in the first place while the vehicle was in motion, without changing the vehicle’s front line to the ticket, and thus, the Plaintiff was driving in the second place. The instant accident occurred by changing the vehicle into the first place. Even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle and Defendant’s vehicle were to have occurred in the process of changing the vehicle at the same time, the ratio of Defendant’s vehicle’s liability would reach 100% in light of the circumstances of the accident.

Therefore, the defendant.