1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a passenger transport business operator who owns and uses D vehicles which are taxi vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On December 8, 2017, at least 18:25, the Defendant’s vehicle, while proceeding one-lane of the three-lanes in Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu, Seoul, leading to the pressure-driven dynamics from the king to the intersection of the three-lanes, completed at least half of the two-lanes. The Plaintiff’s vehicle running the three-lanes of the said road attempted to change its course into the two-lanes. The Plaintiff’s vehicle intending to change its course into the two-lanes, the lower part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s right-hand side.

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

By December 27, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 773,400, which deducted self-paid 331,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in accordance with the aforementioned comprehensive automobile insurance contract. D.

The judgment of the court of first instance judged the fault ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle 30:70, and calculated the amount of the plaintiff's indemnity as KRW 442,080.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, 8 evidence, Eul 1, 2 and 5 evidence and images

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred by changing the course from the first lane to the second lane in violation of his claim that the accident of this case occurred. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred entirely by negligence of defendant vehicle.

In regard to this, the defendant shall not change the course when it is likely to obstruct the normal passage of other vehicles. Since the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff's vehicle's change of course from the three-lane to the two-lane of the road of this case, the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle regarding the accident of this case.