1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order for payment shall be revoked, and

1. Facts of recognition;

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

나. 원고 차량은 2017. 10. 11. 08:00경 남양주시 호평동 산 43-3번지 소재 호평터널 안에서 편도 2차로 중 2차로를 진행하다가 1차로로 차로를 변경하던 중, 1차로에서 뒤따라 오던 피고 차량의 앞부분이 원고 차량의 뒷부분을 충격하여 원고 차량이 1차로에서 180도 회전하여 정차하였고, 피고 차량이 2차로로 튕겨 나가 뒤집어졌으며, 2차로에서 뒤따라 오던 C 차량(이하 ‘피해 차량’이라 한다)이 원고 차량과 피고 차량을 충격하였다

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

On November 24, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,430,00 as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 3,896,540 as the insurance proceeds, totaling KRW 1,46,540 as the repair cost of the damaged vehicle on December 1, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 10 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident constituted 90% by negligence on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was followed by the Defendant’s vehicle following the Plaintiff’s completion of the change of the lane on the one-lane, due to the Defendant’s failure to accelerate the speed. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,506,886 out of the insurance proceeds paid by the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 3,896,540 x 90 x 90 %) and the damages for delay thereof. (ii) The instant accident occurred after the Plaintiff’s change of the lane in the tunnel where the change of course was prohibited, and the instant accident occurred after the Defendant’s driver made efforts to avoid the accident, such as manipulating the Defendant’s vehicle into the right side, which is due to negligence.

B. The judgment is held earlier.