Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under paragraph (2) shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. At the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the accident of this case where the part of the driver's seat of the Plaintiff's vehicle was shocked by the four lanes among the roads in this case where the Plaintiff's vehicle was driving along the four lanes from among the roads in this case where the Plaintiff's vehicle was located at the coast of the 231-lane at the time of the Sinscence of the location of the location of the Defendant's insured vehicle in the insurance relationship (hereinafter "road in this case") at the time of May 1, 2019. The accident of this case where the Plaintiff's vehicle was driving on the three-lanes of the road in this case, while changing the vehicle into the four-lanes, the part of the Plaintiff's driver's seat of the vehicle in this case was shocked by the main gate of the Defendant's vehicle. The payment of the insurance money was made on June 7, 2019 as follows.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 4 (including numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s change of the vehicle’s own car line and shocking the part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat. As such, the Plaintiff’s driver did not have any means to predict or defend it. Therefore, the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant’s driver.

B. At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle sought to change the vehicle line prior to the operation of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff’s driver has the duty of care to have prepared for the change of the vehicle line. Therefore, the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver should also be considered.

3. Determination

A. According to the above basic facts, the accident of this case was caused by negligence in which the driver of the defendant vehicle neglected his duty of care so that it does not interfere with the safety of other vehicles driving four lanes in the alteration of the vehicle vehicle.