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. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is each insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 13:00 on October 14, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle driven a two-lane of the two-lane near Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, and reduced the speed of emergency, etc., and the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the change of the two-lanes to the one-lane, operated the direction direction direction, etc. by the Defendant’s vehicle, and the vehicle following the change of the one-lanes to the one-lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the change of the one-lanes into the latter part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On January 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,535,700 (excluding self-paid KRW 500,000) for the repair cost of Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers for those with serial numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

가. 당사자의 주장 1) 원고 이 사건 사고는 피고 차량이 황색실선이 있는 도로의 2차로에서 유턴을 시도하다가 1차로로 진행하는 원고 차량을 발견하지 못하여 발생한 것으로 피고 차량의 전적인 과실에 의하여 발생하였다. 그리고 원고 차량은 피고 차량의 갑작스러운 차로 변경을 예상할 수 없었다. 따라서 피고는 원고에게 구상금으로 위 2,535,700원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다. 2) 피고 원고 차량이 교차로에서 적색신호임에도 무리하게 통과하였고, 피고 차량이 비상등을 켠 이후 방향지시등을 작동하였음에도 뒤따라 오던 원고 차량이 전방주시의무 등을 태만히 하여 이 사건 사고가 발생하였으므로 피고 차량의 과실은 50% 정도에 불과하다.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings.