1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD on July 30, 2018 at the time of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle, and around 14:03 on July 30, 2018, as shown in the attached traffic accident report (2) on the situation of the collision on the street in the middle of the yellow-distance direction from the yellow-dong Mo-dong Mono-dong Mono-dong at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) is placed in front of the right side of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and paid KRW 8,278,00 on October 1, 2018. The fact that there is no dispute about the payment of the insurance proceeds that the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle was placed in front of the right side of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties' assertion is that the plaintiff sought a reimbursement of the total amount of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on the ground that the accident of this case occurred by negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, while the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's vehicle also was overtaken to the left-hand side in the situation where the plaintiff's vehicle fully recognizes the driving of the defendant vehicle, and the accident occurred, and the driver

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence revealed earlier, i.e., the driver of any motor vehicle, when intending to change the course of the motor vehicle is likely to impede the normal traffic of other motor vehicles running in the direction of the change, shall not change the course. The driver of any motor vehicle, when entering the right side road from the road to the road, which is the place of the accident in this case, has changed the three lanes from the five lanes to the two lanes, and has neglected the duty of care to prevent the collision with the plaintiff's motor vehicle driving in the two lanes. In particular, the driver of any motor vehicle has changed the two lanes directly from the five lanes to the two lanes. The collision between the driver of any motor vehicle and any other motor vehicle driving along the motor vehicle and the driver of any other motor vehicle.