1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with Nonparty A’s owner B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with Nonparty C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On November 12, 2015, around 17:25, the Plaintiff’s vehicle running along the same lane in front of the Daejeon East-gu, Daejeon East-gu, with the vehicle of the Plaintiff, who was driving in front of the two-lane, discovered the Defendant’s vehicle that was moving from the two-lane to the one-lane, and concealed Nonparty D (hereinafter “victim”) who was driving in front of the same lane.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The plaintiff paid 450,000 won for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle due to the above accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, each entry of Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 4, the video of Gap evidence 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 450,00 for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle, the Defendant, a joint tortfeasor, was jointly exempted, and that the Plaintiff acquired the right to indemnity against KRW 225,00,00, which is equivalent to the portion of the Plaintiff’s fault paid in excess of the portion of the Plaintiff’s fault, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 225,00 and the damages

According to the video of the evidence No. 4, it can be recognized that the defendant vehicle intended to change the vehicle into one lane in which the plaintiff vehicle is driving.

However, according to the above image, it can be recognized that the defendant vehicle found the plaintiff vehicle before entering the first lane and did not change the vehicle line, and it appears that the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle were not in danger of direct towing, and that the plaintiff vehicle's towing of the damaged vehicle seems to have been caused by the plaintiff vehicle's failure to properly operate the vehicle while reducing the speed of the damaged vehicle and stopping the vehicle. In full view of this, the defendant vehicle can be seen to have been caused.