1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On February 13, 2018, around 16:20, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding four lanes among the five-lanes of the Gungdong-dong Gyeongdong-dong Gyeongdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si. The Defendant’s vehicle running at the two-lanes of the above road changed to

The E-motor vehicle that has been driven in the three-lanes while getting off, and has moved into such a sofa, and has been in the three-lanes and five-lanes.

On the other hand, there was a conflict between the back of the driver's seat and the front part of the driver's seat of the Plaintiff vehicle.

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

On March 8, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,180,000 as insurance money at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are revealed in light of the fact of the occurrence of the liability for damages and the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence as seen earlier. In other words, the driver of the Defendant vehicle: (i) the driver of the Defendant vehicle was able to change the course rapidly from the two lanes to the four lanes; and (ii) the instant accident occurred without any control; (ii) the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle is proceeding at the speed of 98km/h adjacent to the maximum speed.

In light of the fact that the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who violated the duty of care and safety driving and the duty of safety driving when changing the course, and the occurrence of the accident is considered to be caused by the concurrence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, who violated the duty of safety driving and the duty of safety driving.