1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s Class B, Class III, and one ton of cargo vehicles for A driving (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

B. The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Driving DD vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

다. 2015. 7. 17. 10:40경 C은 피고측 차량을 운전하여 하남시 천현동에 있는 중부고속도로 하남방향 360.7km 지점 편도 5차로 중 1차로를 시속 90km로 진행하던 중 갑자기 왼쪽으로 진행하다가 급하게 오른쪽으로 진행한 과실로 피고측 차량의 우측 앞문 부분으로 2차로에서 직진 중이던 원고측 차량 앞범퍼 좌측 부분을 충격하여 원고측 차량이 3차로로 튕겨져 3차로에서 직진 중이던 E 레조 승용차와 충격하게 하고, 피고측 차량의 우측 뒷 부분으로 위 레조 승용차의 앞범퍼 부분을 충격 후 계속 우전방으로 진행하여 피고측 차량 앞범퍼 부분으로 5차로에서 방음벽 시공 작업중이던 사람들을 충격하고, 그 곳에 정차중이던 F 5톤 화물차 후미 부분을 충격하였다

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged to cover repair costs equivalent to KRW 5,192,600.

E. On September 10, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,192,600 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 6, Gap evidence 7-2 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the parties did not occur during the normal course of changing the vehicle line, but the Defendant’s vehicle intrudes the two-lanes on the part of the Defendant, thereby conflicting the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Thus, the Defendant’s allegation is solely attributable to the Defendant’s negligence.

Therefore, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the repair cost of the plaintiff.