Among the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles owned by the Plaintiff Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 18:20 on June 5, 2019, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along one lane of the four-lane road at the location of the 36km in the area of the main road in the south East-dong Highway at the Namyang-si, the Namyang-si, along the two-lane, changed to the two-lane, the part in front of the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving along the two-lane was shocked into the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, following the lower part.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On June 14, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,345,00 as insurance money after deducting KRW 200,000 from the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purpose of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is an accident that occurred with the intent to threaten the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor who driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle without operating direction direction, etc., and the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor could not avoid the instant accident. As such, the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor could never avoid the instant accident.

Therefore, since the accident of this case occurred by the total negligence of Defendant vehicle, the Defendant, the insurer of Defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff vehicle, the total insurance money paid by the Plaintiff as repair cost, KRW 1,345,00, and delay damages.

B. (1) The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings in the facts acknowledged prior to the ratio of negligence, namely, ① the driver of any motor vehicle intends to change the course of the motor vehicle.