1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Col New Teaching Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to D buses (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On January 31, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly located on the same side as the five-lanes while proceeding from the 5-lane boundary to the ordinary village boundary in accordance with the direction of the city according to the four-lanes among the 5-lanes.

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

By June 22, 2018, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 15,403,550 in total with the medical expenses and agreement of the Defendant vehicle passengers due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The driver of the Defendant’s vehicle alleged by the Plaintiff was able to fully change the lane by operating the direction direction, etc., but the instant accident occurred at a rapid speed. Thus, the negligence of the Defendant’s driver is more than 20%.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred at the wind of changing the course of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s driver as the Defendant’s driver, who had been normally engaged in the instant accident, could not avoid the instant accident. Therefore, the instant accident is entirely attributable to the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence.

3. Determination

A. We examine the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence mentioned above, i.e., (i) whether there is a possibility of obstructing the normal passage of vehicles running in the direction to change the course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). However, this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s where the driver of the Plaintiff is negligent in changing the lane.