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. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A B of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident, and on April 3, 2016, at the location of 11:00 on April 3, 2016, the insured vehicle of the Defendant insured vehicle, the insured vehicle of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul at the location of the collision (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and the insured vehicle of the Defendant (hereinafter “third vehicle”) with the two-lanes of the change of lanes from three to two lanes, and the C bus (hereinafter “third vehicle”) with the two-lanes of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle, which was moving into one-lane in order to avoid the collision with the Defendant vehicle, are moving into one-lane in order to avoid the collision with the Defendant vehicle, and the back wheels of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the 246,480 won (the basis for recognition), the insured vehicle of the injury [the basis for recognition], the respective entry and images

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident was caused solely by the negligence of the driver of the Defendant Vehicle and claimed the full amount of the medical expenses paid by the Plaintiff to the insured D with the warranty agreement for automobile injury, and damages for delay from the day following the date of the final payment of the insurance money. The Defendant was caused by the previous negligence of the third driver of the vehicle, and the negligence of the driver of the Defendant Vehicle was also

The defendant's responsibility should be limited because the driver of the plaintiff vehicle neglected the duty of care.

In light of the circumstances revealed in the above recognition, such as the background of the accident, the degree of conflict and shock, in particular, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the third vehicle, and the location of the Defendant vehicle indicated in the evidence No. 7, the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant vehicle that rapidly changed the vehicle without examining whether the other vehicle is already underway on the lane to be changed at the time of changing the lane, whether the distance from the other vehicle is sufficiently secured, and whether the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle.