1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicles”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to C-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicles”).

B. On September 26, 2016, around 07:55, at the three-lane road of E wife in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and the defendant vehicle is proceeding one lane.

A two-lane, the plaintiff vehicle is proceeding along the three-lane.

While changing the two lanes into two lanes, there was an accident that conflicts between the defendant vehicle and the plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,358,012 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by October 25, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The parties' assertion 1) The plaintiff asserts that the driver of the defendant vehicle, who was parked in the same direction as the vehicle, has caused this accident while changing the vehicle from the first three lanes to the second two lanes. As such, the driver of the defendant vehicle, who was parked in the vehicle at the front of the same direction, caused this accident while changing the vehicle from the first two lanes, the driver's fault ratio of the defendant vehicle is equivalent to 70% in the occurrence of the accident in this case. Accordingly, the defendant, the plaintiff vehicle, while changing the course from the third lane to the second two lanes from the crosswalk in which the change of course is prohibited, could not expect the change of course of the plaintiff vehicle. Accordingly, the accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of the plaintiff vehicle, and even if the defendant vehicle was negligent, the fault ratio does not exceed 20% in this case even if it had been found that there was the negligence of the defendant vehicle, and the whole purport of the arguments in this case can be considered as the following facts and circumstances that the plaintiff vehicle already entered the second lane in the direction of the vehicle.