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 July 4, 2014, around 15:40, when driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and driving the three-lanes of the four-lanes of the four-lanes of the Olympic road located in Yangcheon-ro, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, into the guard of the bridge. The Defendant’s vehicle running the two-lanes from the rear side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle located in the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, changing the two-lanes to the three-lanes, and the two-lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with the front side part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the left side part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle re-consects the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle to the direction of the half-distance direction (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On July 22, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,719,990 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including each number for a tentative number), Eul evidence 1, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence that occurred before changing the lane to the three-lane of the plaintiff vehicle while the plaintiff's vehicle was driving in a normal three-lane as the Olympic that is the exclusive motorway. However, the defendant tried to change the three-lane after the driver of the defendant vehicle overtakens the plaintiff vehicle from the two-lane to the three-lane of the plaintiff vehicle without properly examining the flow of the vehicle in the two-lane, while the vehicle in this case was driving in the latter side of the two-lane, the driver of the vehicle in this case tried to change the three-lane of the way after expressing his intention of change by direction, etc. with sufficient spatial distance. The plaintiff's vehicle failed to yield the course, and it was caused by the plaintiff's overtaking competition by raising the sudden speed.