1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to B its car owned by A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with C.

B. On May 27, 2015, around 11:37, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the two-lane Do road (hereinafter “instant road”) near the Seo-dong, Seo-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu (hereinafter “instant road”) stopped on the two-lane, and C driver’s Eba car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) which started and started on the two-lane, and the accident occurred that contacted the front left side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the back ender from the front front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

From June 27, 2014 to August 19, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 1,422,018 in total to A with the repair cost and the replacement cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3 through 6, Eul's images and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver, since the Defendant’s vehicle that stops on the right-hand side of the instant road while driving along the instant one lane for the Plaintiff’s normal road, is an accident that occurred entirely by the Defendant’s entry into the instant one lane, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to claim the full amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.

B. The instant accident alleged by the Defendant is an accident caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence by the Plaintiff’s driver, and the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver is at least 70%, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle was involved in a sudden change from the first lane to the second lane of the instant road, and it is an accident caused by shocking without regard to the Defendant’s vehicle departing from the second lane.