1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.

3...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the insurer who concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”). On August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle caused a traffic accident (hereinafter “instant accident”). On August 25, 2016, around 09:24, on the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant contributed to the occurrence of the said accident and the expansion of damage by negligence on the part of the Defendant’s driver’s failure to perform his duty of care on the front side of the vehicle and the failure to drive the concession driving.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to claim the amount of money equivalent to 30% of the negligence ratio of the driver of the defendant vehicle among the insurance money 506,170 won, including the medical expenses paid by the plaintiff to the victim of the accident of this case, and the compensation for delay thereof.

B. We examine whether the driver of the Defendant vehicle was negligent in contributing to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage.

According to the statements or images in Gap evidence No. 2 and Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue at the time of the accident at issue at the time of the accident at issue at the time of the accident at issue at the time of the vehicle at issue, the defendant vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the two-lane, and the vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the two-lane. However, despite the fact that the defendant vehicle at the time at the time is driving almost far far as there was no space for

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who attempted to change the vehicle rapidly without securing the necessary distance to avoid collision with the surrounding vehicle when changing the vehicle on the expressway.

Therefore, on a different premise, the prior plaintiff's assertion is further examined about the remainder.