1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

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

B. At around 14:10 on July 13, 2017, the Defendant’s vehicle was straightened by the two lanes near D Hospital located in the petition district C within the speed limit (60km/h) depending on straight signal. The Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to change the lane into a two-lane line between a bus and a car parked at the three-lanes of the said road, and the front front and rear front of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat, and the front and rear front of the Plaintiff’s front front door of the vehicle was shocked by the front and rear front of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On July 27, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 707,500 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred between the Plaintiff’s driver’s negligence in violation of the method of changing the course and the Defendant’s driver’s negligence in breach of the concession and speed driving duty. In light of the circumstances and details of the instant accident, the driver’s negligence in relation to the instant accident is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s negligence in relation to the instant accident is 40%.

On the other hand, with payment of insurance money of KRW 707,50 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle destroyed by the instant accident, the driver of the Defendant vehicle was exempted from liability for damages equivalent to 40% of the above repair cost.

Therefore, according to subrogation by the insurer under Article 682 of the Commercial Act, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of claim, which is equivalent to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, out of the above insurance money.

(b)the driver of any motor vehicle that considers;