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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Poter Vehicles owned by C (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Motor Vehicle”).

B. On February 23, 2016, A driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 10:10 a.m. on the Tuesday, and driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at around 10:10 p.m., the distance of the Jeoncheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, Jeoncheon-do, Jeoncheon-dong, Jeoncheon-dong, East-dong, North Korea, was directly driving from the

C. At the time, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the central line from the south-west side of the bicycle to the white slope; and (b) moved to the Plaintiff’s road along the Plaintiff’s vehicle; and (c) caused an accident of collision between the Defendant’s bicycle front side and the

Attached Form 3 is the accident site map (A. 3).

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). D.

As the insurer of C, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,070,300 (excluding the amount of KRW 200,000,000) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 6, 14, 15, Gap evidence 16-1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle is a traffic accident caused by the Defendant’s unilateral negligence, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the direction towards the side in order to avoid a collision by discovering the Defendant’s bicycle, and stopped immediately before the collision, and the Defendant’s failure to drive along the Plaintiff’s vehicle continuously due to its balance.

The insurer under the Commercial Act seeks to pay the amount equivalent to the cost of repair by subrogation.

(2) Since the Plaintiff’s vehicle neglected to operate the brake system and did not notify the Plaintiff of the risk of operating the brake system properly or sounding the horn, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is also negligent.

B. The facts below the facts can be acknowledged in full view of the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 13.

(1) The instant road is one-lane asphalt road along which a median line is installed, and the side length is both sides of the road.