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 revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The following are the developments leading up to the accident (hereinafter “instant accident”).

At the time of the accident, at around 19:00 on October 25, 2018, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) driven along the bus-only one lane, which is the bus-only one lane, among the five-lane roads at the above location, around the center of Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul. However, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped on the two-lanes, changing from the actual line where the change of course is prohibited, to the front direction of the Defendant vehicle and the parts adjacent to the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle were conflicting.

Total amount of damages 2,508,000 Won 2,008,000 Won 500,000

B. On December 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,008,00,000, after deducting KRW 500,000,00 of the self-paid charges for damages, such as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that (1) since the driver of the defendant vehicle was unable to avoid the accident of this case in violation of his duty of care, the driver of the defendant vehicle asserts that the ratio of negligence contributed to the accident of this case should be at least 30%.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred from the total negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in an unreasonable way in the section where career change is prohibited.

B. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, if the driver of the defendant vehicle shows the front section properly, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle could have avoided the accident by predicting that the driver of the vehicle could change the vehicular road. However, the accident of this case basically interferes with the normal passage of the defendant vehicle at the place where the change of course is prohibited.