1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff Company A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On November 8, 2015, around 19:15, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving along the two lanes along the four-lanes around the Gancheon-dong, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul. However, the Defendant’s vehicle driving in one-lane in the same direction as the horse was changing the two-lanes to the two-lanes, resulting in an accident that compromises on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On November 19, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 598,000 insurance money at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, or the purport of whole pleadings

2. 1) The Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, on the ground that, when the Defendant’s vehicle almost completed the change of the lane, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the three lanes to the two lanes, and claimed that the instant accident occurred by shocking the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle. 2) According to the above fact of recognition, the instant accident was caused by the mistake of the Defendant’s vehicle, even though it is necessary to safely examine the movement of other vehicles driving along the vehicle that intended to enter the lane in the course of changing the lane, even though it is necessary to safely drive the instant accident by taking into account the move of the vehicle driving along

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the video of the Eul evidence No. 2 has changed the lanes from three lanes to two lanes, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's assertion premised on this is not acceptable, and there is no evidence to recognize that the plaintiff's vehicle was negligent in driving.

3. Therefore, the defendant's insurance money of KRW 598,00, which the plaintiff borne by the plaintiff, and KRW 29,000, which is the part cited in the judgment of the first instance, shall be the payment date of the above insurance money.