1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to A-car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of B-si (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”).

B. At around 16:00 on September 17, 2013, C driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and proceeded to a three-lane road as the bankruptcy of Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is located in the vicinity of the bankruptcy park. On the three-lane road, the vehicle was parked on the front of the bankruptcy park. As the vehicle was changed from the three-lane to the four-lane road, while the vehicle was changed from the three-lane to the four-lane, C was forced to stop to avoid a collision with the irregular taxi immediately preceding the vehicle while the vehicle was changing from the three-lane to the four-lane road. Accordingly, the vehicle was changed from the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time to the four-lane road near the point of the accident, and the change of the four-lane road was completed to the four-lane road near the main one, and the part of the front and the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the end of the Defendant taxi, which was in progress, to the end of the accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On November 14, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,680,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle with the insurance proceeds.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including each provisional lot number distribution), Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each provisional lot number distribution), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to the failure of the defendant taxi driver to perform the duty of the front line and the failure to secure the safety distance, since the defendant taxi driver, following the completion of the change of the vehicle vehicle in the fourth lane, and the accident in this case occurred due to the whole negligence that the plaintiff did not secure the safety distance, while the defendant asserts that the plaintiff has the obligation to claim the full amount of the vehicle repair cost paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff. However, if the plaintiff in the third lane changed the vehicle in the fourth lane to the fourth lane and the defendant taxi in the fourth lane changed to the fourth lane, the defendant is exempted from liability.