1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of D Bus (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On February 22, 2019, around 09:00, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the two lanes of the third lane of the front line of Gangseo-gu Seoul E-do, and stopped after changing the three lanes into the third lane. The Defendant’s vehicle running along the third lane in the last direction was shocked by the back part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On March 27, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 292,217, which deducts KRW 200,000 of the self-paid cost from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The Plaintiff’s main point of argument was that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of neglecting the duty of front-time care and operating the brake system at the latest.

Therefore, the Defendant, who is the user of the Defendant’s vehicle, is obligated to claim the amount equivalent to the insurance money out of the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the Plaintiff in subrogation of the Plaintiff’

B. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the facts on the basis of the judgment and the evidence as seen earlier, namely, the instant accident appears to be the main cause of the Plaintiff’s fault, which led to the Defendant’s overtaking vehicle and stopping on the three-lanes, and the Defendant’s vehicle was driving at the maximum speed of 45km at the time. However, it appears that the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving on the two-lanes entered the three-lanes at a rapid speed, and that the rapid operation was commenced immediately, and the Defendant’s vehicle was on board a large number of passengers at the time as a bus with a long distance, and thus, if the vehicle operated more rapidly, it could avoid a conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle.