1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle CD on July 19, 2018 at the time of the insured vehicle’s insured vehicle CD on July 12:3, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the front road collision situation in Seocho-gu Seoul is driving along one lane among the three lanes of the above location. The Plaintiff’s vehicle in the front road collision situation in Seocho-gu, Seoul, was changing from two lanes to one lane on the right side of the vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle changed from two lanes to one lane on July 27, 2018, paid the insurance money to shock the gate. The Plaintiff’s payment of the insurance money was 1,212,70 won on July 27, 2018 (based on recognition), without any dispute, and KRW 302,00 of the self-paid vehicle’s insured vehicle’s self-paid fee to be paid in KRW 1,212,700 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The purport of the entire pleadings,

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s Defendant’s vehicle stops in the future of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which moved along a one-lane vehicle from the two-lane to the one-lane one, and then stops in the future. The instant accident is not a simple post-explic accident, but an accident during the change of the course of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the driver’s fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle regarding the said accident is more than 70%, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff’s insurance money as the indemnity payment.

B. In the event that the Defendant’s instant accident completed the normal change of the lane from the two lanes to the one lane, the Plaintiff’s driver, who followed the instant accident, discovered the Defendant’s vehicle at the latest due to the failure of the Plaintiff’s driver to perform his duty on the front line and did not follow the operation without complying with the operation manual. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s previous negligence was caused by the Plaintiff’s driver.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the above basic facts and each of the above evidence, in particular, according to Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 7-12, the defendant vehicle started to change the lane from the second lane to the first lane in the place where the accident in this case occurred, and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle as above.