Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid entrepreneur who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with C (hereinafter “Defendant”) with C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 09:27 September 9, 2013, when driving the Defendant’s vehicle and driving it into the Olympic Park site in the Olympic Park site on the front of the Defendant’s vehicle, D changed the vehicle line to the left left left to turn to the left at the left-hand distance, and the left-hand turn to turn to the left-hand turn in the same direction, and the left-hand side and the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which had changed the lane from the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to turn to the left in the same direction, was shocked to the front part

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

On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,321,300 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, 9 (including paper numbers), and Eul's evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings is added, the following parts of the plaintiff's vehicle are shocked with the defendant's vehicle, the driver of the defendant's vehicle stated in the police investigation that "the defendant's vehicle, who attempted to make a left turn after receiving a turn turn turn turn turn, has driven the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the safety zone," and the defendant's vehicle can recognize the fact of final stopping at a location close to the safety zone. Accordingly, the defendant's vehicle, which was trying to make a turn turn left, caused the plaintiff's vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the safety zone. Thus, the accident in this case occurred by the main negligence of the defendant's vehicle.

However, since the defendant's vehicle that was followed by the plaintiff's driver can also attempt to change the vehicle line, the defendant's vehicle has to pay attention to the course of the defendant's vehicle while changing the vehicle line.