1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD at the time of the accident, on May 5, 2018 at 20:05, when the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff insured vehicle CD at the time of the accident, the vehicle in the front of the road collision situation, while driving in two lanes in the front of the above location, the direction direction, etc. was set off in order to make a U-turn at the three-lanes of the above location. On the front of the part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat, the insured vehicle was shocked by the front of the Defendant’s right side of the above road, which was driven in the front of the above road, and the insurance money paid was paid in advance on May 18, 2018, the fact that there is no dispute over KRW 2,263,00,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and KRW 500,000 for the self-paid vehicle of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (based on recognition), and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The accident of this case occurred by the negligence of the driver of the previous vehicle and the driver of the defendant vehicle who violated the duty of front-time care and the duty of concession driving. Thus, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,357,800 equivalent to 60% of the negligence ratio of the driver of the defendant vehicle out of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff as compensation.

B. The Defendant’s instant accident occurred while the Defendant’s vehicle was normally straighted in the first lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was trying to make an illegal internship on the two-lanes. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s total negligence occurred.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the above basic facts, each of the above evidence, and the video of Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff's driver can recognize that the plaintiff's vehicle was shocked with the defendant's vehicle who followed the direction direction, etc. while driving in the two-lanes of the location of the accident in this case immediately in order to promptly walk. Thus, the accident in this case is unreasonable by rapidly changing the course from the two-lane to the one-lane.