1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On March 28, 2013, at around 10:26, C, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and proceeding along the road along the right side of the road, one way ahead of the regradation of the flusium in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangseo-gu, on the side of the road. On the other hand, C, there was an accident of collision between the part behind the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was the direction toward the left left-hand vehicle before the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the part behind the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. Roads adjacent to the instant accident site are located on the one-lane road or a part of the right side of the road, and the section where no vehicle is parked is larger than that where two prices of the vehicle can proceed, and the vehicle was not parked at the time of the accident site.

On June 26, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,250,880 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 1, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted by the parties that the accident in this case was caused by negligence before changing the course to the left side of the plaintiff's own vehicle without properly examining the flow of the vehicle in the lane that the defendant's vehicle in front of the road in front of the plaintiff's way to the left side, while the accident in this case was normally proceeding on the right side of the road in front of the road in front of the traffic-free distance, which is the point where the accident in this case occurred, and the plaintiff's vehicle that was proceeding in front of the defendant's vehicle in front of the plaintiff's vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the plaintiff's way to turn to the right side is unreasonable.