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. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings on the entries or videos set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 3, 6, 7, and Eul evidence 1 and 3:

The plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with AM5 vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff vehicle"), and the defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to B cargo vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant vehicle").

B. On April 3, 2014, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 13:06, and driving along the two-lanes near the intersection in Seongbuk-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant road”) along the two-lanes from the west bank to the west bank, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the two-lanes into the two-lanes of the instant road in order to avoid ruber-mixeds installed on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the construction project going on the front side of the instant road, which is located in the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. The lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle running along the two-lanes into the front right fence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while changing the two-lanes into the two-lanes of the instant road.

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

Until October 13, 2014, the Plaintiff paid 633,490 won in total with the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident to the repair company, etc.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties concerned is that the Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred due to the narrow lane due to the construction works and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was proceeding in the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, should inevitably go along two lanes. However, the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding in the front section of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was proceeding in a two-lane without yield to the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and is caused by the former fault of the Defendant’s driver.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the vehicle, is the full amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the insurer of the vehicle, and damages for delay.