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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the vehicle.

B. On August 10, 2017, around 18:17, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving along a two-lane, the right-hand turn-on line of the third-lane road in the vicinity of the branch office of the New-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the vehicle was stopped on the first-lane, the right-hand turn-on line, and the Defendant’s vehicle, the vehicle changed to the two-lane line.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. By September 11, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 470,800 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, Gap evidence 4, the video of Gap evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant vehicle, which was stopped on the left-hand turn line, intends to change the vehicle's speed to the driving road of the plaintiff vehicle, and the accident of this case occurred, this is solely caused by the negligence of the defendant vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that, since the plaintiff vehicle, which was proceeding in the later bank, did not properly examine the movement of the defendant vehicle in the front section, and the accident of this case occurred, the plaintiff vehicle is at least 40% of the negligence.

B. In full view of the facts on the basis of the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff 1 and the Defendant 1’s vehicle, and the overall purport of the arguments, namely, the following circumstances: (a) the place where the Defendant 1’s vehicle changes its course was permitted to change its course to the moving section; (b) the Defendant 1’s vehicle stops on the left line without keeping a sufficient distance from the Plaintiff 1’s vehicle that is the latter driving vehicle; and (c) the Defendant 1 changed its course to the right line, the right line; and (d) the Defendant 2 changed to the right line at a relatively low speed.