1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with A and B ASEAN A7 vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who entered into a car mutual aid agreement with C cab vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On September 14, 2015, at around 11:30, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the two lanes in front of the E hotel in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, along the two lanes in front of the E hotel, and attempted to change the lane into one lane, the lower part of the Plaintiff’s right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was located in one lane in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, was shocked into the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,483,000 insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap's evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred as a negligence of changing the lane without operating direction lights in the real line section where the driver of the defendant vehicle is prohibited from changing the lane, while the defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle also did not yield the lane to the defendant vehicle, and that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle was negligent in driving the vehicle as it is without driving the direction lights.

B. The judgment of the court below is based on the facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows: (i) the point at which the instant accident occurred occurred is a real line where the change of lanes is prohibited due to the location where the passage begins; (ii) the Defendant’s vehicle runs as much as the speed of driving at the back without reducing the speed of driving; and (ii) the Defendant’s vehicle driver, who runs a two-lane vehicle, could not have anticipated the Defendant’s vehicle on the two-lane, to move into the one-lane as above, and (iii) it appears that it is difficult for the Plaintiff’s driver, who runs a one-lane vehicle on the two-lane line, to expect the Defendant’s vehicle to move into the one-lane.