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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an agent driver insurance contract with C Co., Ltd., a substitute driver company, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has concluded an automobile mutual aid contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On July 26, 2017, 01:39, an agent E, a stock company, driving a F vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and driving along a four-lane road near the northwest of the Seocho-dong, Mapo-gu, Seoul, along the four-lane road, was stopped according to the stop signal of the front line immediately after the two-lane change.

The plaintiff's vehicle driving along the two-lanes of the above-mentioned road changed from the two-lanes of the plaintiff's vehicle to enter the future of the plaintiff's vehicle and stopped the defendant's vehicle, and the part of the plaintiff's vehicle did not avoid the defendant's vehicle's vehicle.

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

On September 15, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 5,598,200 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 or 2, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s alleged vehicle was stopped after the completion of the change of the lane, but the Defendant’s vehicle neglected the duty to stop on the front line and to secure the safety distance, and thus, the instant accident was caused by the total negligence of the Defendant vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 5,598,200 won and damages for delay paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

B. The following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence mentioned above on the board, that is, the Plaintiff’s vehicle had already entered the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle in the front line, and was stopped in accordance with the suspension signal at the front line, the Defendant’s vehicle was unable to avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to neglecting the duty of the front line.