1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicles”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On July 30, 2018, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped for the signal waiting at the fourth lane among the five-lanes of sublime sublime (hereinafter “Roster”). At that time, the Defendant’s vehicle located in the three-lane in the same direction changed the lane to four-lanes, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle shocked with the driving seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the chief side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On October 12, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,262,00 as the final insurance money, excluding the Plaintiff’s vehicle insured KRW 200,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries, Gap's 1 through 5, 7 through 9, 10 through 12, 14, 15, Eul's 1 through 4 (including various numbers), the purpose of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

가. 원고는 이 사건 사고 당시 원고 차량과 피고 차량은 둘 다 직진 방향의 차로를 주행 중이었는데 피고 차량이 로터리를 진출하기 위하여 진로변경을 해야 할 사정이 없었고 또한 이 사건 사고 직전에는 원고 차량이 피고 차량의 앞에 위치하고 있어 원고 차량으로서는 피고 차량의 방향지시등 작동 여부 등을 알아챌 수 없었으므로, 원고 차량 운전자는 피고 차량의 진로변경을 전혀 예상할 수 없었는바, 이 사건 사고는 피고 차량의 전적인 과실로 급하게 진로를 변경하여 발생한 것이라고 주장한다.

B. As to this, the defendant's vehicle at the time of the accident in this case had been changed in the course by preceding the plaintiff's vehicle in order to enter the waterway, and the plaintiff's vehicle can sufficiently be seen as changing the course to the right side prior to the defendant's vehicle.