1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. From May 20, 2016 to February 17, 2017, the Defendant: (a) KRW 916,000 to the Plaintiff; and (b) as to the said KRW.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 28, 2015, around 16:44, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle: (a) the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was driving along the first two-lane between the two-lanes of the southsan 3 tunnels and the third-lanes of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, had the front side of the Defendant’s left side of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was driving along the third-lanes of the southsan 3 tunnels, from the bank of the Seoul Metropolitan Government, into the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On May 19, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 916,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case was caused exclusively by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle, who entered the vehicle of this case, driving a normal one lane on the right side of the defendant vehicle by sufficient contact while entering the vehicle of this case.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case is that the plaintiff's vehicle driving behind the defendant's vehicle while trying to change the vehicle line from the three lanes to the two lanes after completing the change of the vehicle line again, the plaintiff's vehicle driving behind the defendant's vehicle is driving on the one lane to overtake the defendant vehicle, and the driver's fault ratio of the plaintiff's vehicle is at least 20%.

B. In light of the following: (a) the foregoing evidence; (b) the background of the instant accident; and (c) the damaged parts and form of each of the instant vehicles, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the instant accident was caused by shocking the Plaintiff’s previous vehicle by the Defendant driver who neglected the duty of front-time and safe driving; and (b) the instant accident was caused by total negligence by the Defendant driver.

Therefore, the defendant.