1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 20, 2014, around 13:10 on April 20, 2014, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while changing the bus line from the two-lane to the one-lane bus exclusive for buses, shocked the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s right part, the front part, and the front door, etc. in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s driver’s seat.

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

By August 8, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,830,800 in total as medical expenses and agreed amount for the passengers of the Defendant vehicle, the repair expenses for the Plaintiff vehicle, and the agreed amount for the passengers of the Plaintiff vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant accident occurred due to negligence, which neglected the front-time presentation although the Plaintiff’s vehicle was anticipated to change its course, operated slowly and safely. The negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle in relation to the instant accident is 30%.

Therefore, the defendant should pay 6,249,180 won (=20,830,800 won x 30%) and damages for delay corresponding to the defendant's fault ratio among the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

B. As seen earlier, the point of accident is an exclusive bus road for an expressway, and since a large number of vehicles permitted to pass along the bus exclusive lanes are anticipated to enter the above lane, the Defendant vehicle driver has a duty of care to anticipate such circumstance and drive the bus exclusive lanes. However, according to the video of the certificate No. 1 of the above, the Plaintiff vehicle is directly driving the bus exclusive lane.