1. The decision of the first instance court shall be modified in accordance with the reduction of the purport of the claim in the trial as follows:

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner and operator of B si (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On May 22, 2017, around 21:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the fourth-lane of the subway line 5 subway lines located in the Dong of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, along the four-lanes of the subway line 6 lanes, and changed its course to turn left, there was an accident of collision between the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle running on the two-lanes and the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in order to turn back to the left (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the Plaintiff’s vehicle overlaps with the Defendant’s bus vehicle running across the median line and the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

C. On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,820,000 at the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, including the payment of KRW 5,820,000.

9.1. By the time of the instant accident, insurance proceeds of KRW 30,448,860 were paid to the bus passengers injured in total due to hospital treatment costs, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 10, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred as the driver's negligence should be calculated at 70% because the accident in this case occurred by discovering the plaintiff's vehicle that the defendant's vehicle attempted to change the lane and did not prevent any collision by lowering the speed.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who attempted to change the lane in an unreasonable manner.

3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the fact of the judgment, the above recognition, and the evidence revealed earlier, namely, ① the Defendant’s vehicle was in a straight line at the time of the instant accident, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a straight line from the fourth to the second two lanes, and ② the Defendant’s driver’s view can be seen.