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. Basic facts

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

On December 19, 2017, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) at the time of the accident, around 03:20 on December 19, 2017, in the situation of road collision between the Changdong Burial Station in Jongno-gu Seoul and the Dongdong Station, the Defendant vehicle driven the three lanes of the third line road in the Dongdong Station in the Dongdong Station in the Dongdong Station, and temporarily stopped the previous vehicle drivinging in the two lanes at the seat of the Dongdong Station, and temporarily stopped accordingly. On the same occasion, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the Defendant vehicle following the Defendant vehicle at the second lane in the front direction and the gate part of the vehicle following the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. On February 8, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 694,000 as mutual-aid money for the Plaintiff’s vehicle loss caused by the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the facts charged with negligence ratio, and the purport of the entire arguments as to the aforementioned evidence.

(1) When a motor vehicle is traveling behind any other motor vehicle traveling in the same direction, a driver of any motor vehicle shall maintain a distance necessary to avoid any collision with the motor vehicle traveling ahead of it when the latter stops suddenly.

(Article 19(1) of the Road Traffic Act. The Defendant’s vehicle is proceeding along three lanes of the three-lane road, and attempted to change the course from the instant accident site to the two-lanes. At the time, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving along the two-lanes from the rear side of the Defendant’s vehicle. However, as the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to change its course as above, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is a defendant’s vehicle at a very rapid speed without yielding the course.