1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On September 24, 2015, at around 00:03, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded along the three-lanes of the road located in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, along the direction of the intersection from the intersection of the Seocho-gu, to the intersection of the Seoul intersection, and immediately changed the two-lanes. The Defendant’s vehicle proceeded in the same direction as the Plaintiff’s vehicle according to the two-lanes of the above road, and turned down the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the front side of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “the instant accident”). Meanwhile, at the time of the instant accident, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle was under drinking alcohol level of 0.152%.

C. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 987,810 as insurance money until October 23, 2015, for damage, such as injury, etc. caused by the instant accident by the Plaintiff’s passenger E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred because the driver of the defendant vehicle neglected his duty of safe driving in the state of drinking. The plaintiff asserts that the responsibility for the accident of this case is entirely against the defendant vehicle.

In this regard, the defendant argued that the plaintiff's vehicle started to change the lane in the intersection where the change of lane is prohibited, and neglected the duty of care while changing the lane. The plaintiff's fault ratio of the accident in this case reaches 80%.

B. We examine the following facts and circumstances, namely, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, which are acknowledged by the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments, and the following facts and circumstances.