Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked, and such revocation shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle C (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to Dsi (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

B. On September 22, 2019, at around 05:02, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded along a two-lane road in front of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-do along the one-lane air basin from the Yeongdeungpoporo basin of Yeongdeungpoporo, but changed the vehicle to the two-lane, and returned to the one-lane, the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle running on the one-lane was shocked with the left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On December 27, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the total of KRW 2,669,340, and the total of KRW 27,330,000 (excluding KRW 500,000,000) for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was running along the Plaintiff’s vehicle by changing the vehicle from the two lanes to the one lane, the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to overtake the Plaintiff vehicle beyond the median line, and the negligence of the Defendant vehicle is equivalent to 70%.

2) As to this, the Defendant was negligent on the part of the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked to the Defendant’s vehicle, which was normally occupied by one lane after changing the vehicle from the first lane to the second lane in order to make a U-turn.

The argument is asserted.

B. The following circumstances found in full view of the facts admitted prior to the error ratio and the purport of the entire arguments, and the instant accident returned again to one lane in order to avoid the vehicle parked in the front road where the Plaintiff’s vehicle was changed from the first lane to the second lane.