1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to the Plaintiff’s C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s Vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s Vehicle”).

B. On June 21, 2018, around 17:03, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding along one-lanes around the 451 Jeonjin-gu, Seojin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. The Defendant’s vehicle, which was stopped on the same direction as the Plaintiff’s vehicle, has given direction direction, etc. in the section where career change is prohibited, and the vehicle was changed into one-lane, and there was an accident that conflicts between the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front side of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On June 27, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 785,000,000, excluding its own charges, at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 10 evidence, Eul’s 1 or 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (i.e., the plaintiff met the plaintiff's vehicle that the defendant vehicle moved along the first lane by rapidly changing the course from the section where the change of course is prohibited. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the total negligence of the defendant vehicle, and that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the total amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff.

D. The Defendant asserts that, as the Defendant’s vehicle used direction direction, etc. and attempted to change course on a full scale, the Plaintiff’s vehicle contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident by running at a rapid speed without paying attention to the progress of the surrounding vehicle, the Defendant’s negligence due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the duty of safe operation should be considered.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the above-mentioned facts and the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., the instant accident is prohibited from changing the course of the Defendant’s vehicle at the intersection.