1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 2,087,735 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from December 17, 2015 to October 21, 2016.

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 business operator who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On September 26, 2015, at around 13:00, the Plaintiff’s vehicle runs a two-lane between the four-lanes in front of the high speed terminal, Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu distribution 4, and rapidly changed the two-lane into one-lane, and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was straighted in the first-lane, conflict with the left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,052,30, and KRW 2,115,050 to C who was on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle for agreed money and medical expenses, respectively, and paid KRW 16,710,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 9, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff’s vehicle turned on the direction direction, etc. at the two-lanes, and was changed to the one-lanes. However, the Defendant’s vehicle following the instant accident occurred while driving in the speed without driving slowly and driving at the one-lanes. As such, the Defendant determined the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle related to the instant accident as 30% and paid to the Plaintiff KRW 6,263,200 [20,877,350 in total amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff (= KRW 2,052,300 in total amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff) x KRW 30% in proportion to the Defendant’s fault ratio, and KRW 30% in total.

B. According to the above facts of recognition 1, the accident in this case occurred when the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the lane from the four lanes to the three lanes, and the two lanes back to the two lanes, and then changed rapidly to the one lane. This has a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle by examining whether there is another vehicle driving on the left and right side in changing the lane.