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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to a vehicle for A Sylla (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B bus (hereinafter “Defendant bus”).

B. On October 15, 2013, at around 09:30 on October 15, 2013, E driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the port of the yacht stadium to the sea-section in accordance with two lanes in front of the Busan Shipping Daegu Home Stackers, and driving the vehicle at the front of the running direction by changing the two lanes into one lane in front of the driving speed of the Plaintiff, while driving the vehicle at the speed of the front of the driving direction, there was a conflict between the front part of the Defendant’s bus that attempted to change the vehicle from the second lane in front of the last direction to the first one (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. By November 29, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 82,355,850 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident to E with insurance proceeds.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to the previous negligence of the driver of the defendant bus who tried to change the lane in the first lane without properly examining the running situation of the vehicle in the lane intended to change, while the defendant argued that the accident in this case occurred due to the previous negligence of the driver of the defendant bus who tried to change the lane in the first lane. On the other hand, the defendant bus was changing the lane slowly while on and off the direction direction direction, etc., but the accident in this case occurred on the wind where the driver of the plaintiff vehicle operated the vehicle in the second direction, and thus, the accident in this case occurred, such as the violation of the driver's duty to safely drive the vehicle in this case, which caused the accident in this case.

3. The following facts can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions or images of Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 4 and Eul evidence 4: