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

B. On October 23, 2017, around 20:45, the Defendant’s vehicle driven the three-lanes of the six-lanes of the road near the city of Jung-si into the airside in Seoul, and the three-lanes are changed from the four-lane to the four-lanes in order to enter the two-lanes into the right side of the proceeding direction. On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the four-lanes of the same road and the part on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle conflict (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On November 16, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,868,700 with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle for the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7 through 9 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion that the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the defendant's driver who changed the lane from the third to the fourth lane without verifying the plaintiff's vehicle, while the defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle also did not drive and defend the defendant's vehicle by driving direction, such as speeding or driving, etc. with respect to the change of the lane, and instead, he did not drive and defend the defendant's vehicle, and that the negligence ratio reaches at least 30%.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above facts of recognition and the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, at the time of the instant accident, appears to have been driving in almost in the same state. The Plaintiff’s vehicle driver is almost at the same time.