1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

2. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On December 11, 2016, at around 13:46, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded along the fourth line (on the other hand), among the fifth line roads in the direction of the 5th line in the vicinity of the National Cemetery of Dongjak-gu Seoul National Cemetery, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, along the intersection in the front line, and continued along the second line along the third line as the lane decreases.

At the time, the Defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection from the third line, which is the right-hand turn from the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, to the left-hand line of the said third line, and then entered the first line among the third line of the said third line, and changed the way to the second line on which the Plaintiff’s vehicle was running, and the upper part of the upper part to the right-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 4,700,000 as insurance money for the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused by the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) The instant accident occurred due to the negligence of one party of the Defendant vehicle who violated the method of career change, such as changing the way from the intersection to the intersection, after passing through the intersection, without operating the direction direction, etc. (2) At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle was prior to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was anticipated to change the way in which the Defendant’s vehicle could have anticipated to change the way in which it would drive or take necessary safety measures, and thus, the instant accident is also liable for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. The driver of any motor vehicle in Article 38 (1) of the Road Traffic Act shall be the driver of any motor vehicle.