1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

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

B. Around December 14:57, 2014, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driving the Defendant vehicle and proceeding from the two lanes to the four-lanes in the front of the Seocheon-dong Scar University, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, and changed the two-lanes through the three-lanes, the left part of the Plaintiff vehicle driving in the four-lanes was shocked into the front right part of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,813,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts and evidence, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving normally along the four lanes at the time of the instant accident, namely, the Defendant’s vehicle driving in the same direction with the three lanes to the fourth lane, and the Defendant’s vehicle driving in the four lanes from the four lanes to the fourth lane, barring special circumstances, it is common to believe that the four lanes of the four lanes of the four lanes of the road are driving along the vehicle normally while maintaining the four lanes. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s vehicle has a duty of care to operate the vehicle by means of reducing its speed by predicting the two lanes through the three lanes of the two lanes to the four lanes. In light of the degree of securing the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver’s vision due to the vehicle driving in the three lanes in this case, and the shock level of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, etc., the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver was found in advance and did not have sufficient time to reduce its speed.