1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid association which entered into an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to the vehicle B belonging to the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On December 18, 2016, 14:13:14:13, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, from active duty service, was going to enter the bus line from the first lane to the second lane, which is the bus’s central road (hereinafter “instant road”), and the front part of the driver’s seat of the Defendant’s vehicle entering the same as the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, changing the bus line from the third lane to the second one. The Defendant’s vehicle shocked the bus stop facilities to the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and shocked the C vehicle (hereinafter “victim’s vehicle”).

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

From December 21, 2016 to April 12, 2017, the Plaintiff paid total of KRW 9,252,780 as the hospital treatment costs and damages for the driver and the passengers of the Defendant vehicle due to the instant accident, and KRW 19,795,00 as the cost of repairing road facilities and vehicles, and KRW 29,047,780 as the insurance proceeds.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident simultaneously overlaps between the Plaintiff’s vehicle that changed the lane and the Defendant’s vehicle’s negligence, and the Defendant’s vehicle did not operate the direction, etc. at the time of changing the lane. Therefore, at least 50% of the Defendant’s negligence should be recognized. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s vehicle immediately before the instant accident occurred, was overtaken the Defendant’s vehicle by using the bus exclusive lane, and the Defendant’s vehicle, which is a general passenger vehicle, is beyond the safety zone where the change of the bus line is prohibited.