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

The defendant.

Facts of recognition

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

B. On February 26, 2017, around 09:00, the Defendant’s vehicle turned back the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which temporarily suspended to turn to the left, following the two-lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the same direction according to the two-lanes near the shooting distance at the entrance of the second-lane city located in the Busan East-gu Office.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On May 22, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 350,000 insurance money at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence 1, Eul's video, and argument of the parties to the whole pleadings

A. The instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of Defendant 1, who shocked the Plaintiff’s vehicle without securing safety distance.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 350,000 won for indemnity equivalent to the total amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff in accordance with the principle of subrogation of the insurer to the plaintiff.

B. As the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s sudden stop on the Han-dok, the Defendant’s vehicle did not have any negligence in relation to the instant accident, since the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s sudden stop on the Han-dok, Han-dok.

Judgment

In other words, Article 19(4) of the Road Traffic Act provides that "All drivers of vehicles shall not make a sudden operation, such as making a sudden stop of the vehicle driving or reducing the speed of the vehicle, unless it is necessary to prevent the danger or in any other inevitable circumstances." The plaintiff vehicle is driving a two-lane, which is not the left-hand way but the left-hand turn signal, and the front-hand signal is the signal.