1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered to be additionally paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. Around 17:43 March 30, 2019, the Defendant’s vehicle proceeded along a two-lane from the Sinju-ri legal interest village at the port of Pakistan, the right side part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which entered the same as a one-lane via the two-lane in peace, was shocked into the part of the left front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, while going through a two-lane in peace.

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

On June 28, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,849,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's right to indemnity

(a) Where any driver of any motor vehicle intends to change course and it is likely to impede normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction to which he/she intends to change, he/she shall not change his/her course (Article 19 (3) of the Road Traffic Act), and where any driver of any motor vehicle intends to make a right-hand through an intersection, he/she shall drive slowly along the right-hand side of

(Article 25 (1) (b) of the same Act.

The following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the overall purport of oral arguments as mentioned above, that is, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, who entered the lane on the right side of the road at the time of bypass, violates the duty of safe driving under the Road Traffic Act by entering the lane. ② The driver of the Plaintiff vehicle, who is the driver of the vehicle, is likely to predict the entry of the vehicle, not the scheduled lane in terms of the Defendant vehicle, or to avoid the occurrence of the accident caused by the entry.