1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

At the time of the accident, the insured vehicle CD on November 2, 2017 at the time when the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff insured vehicle was driving on the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle in the situation of the collision on the coast line at the Seoan-gun, Yan-gun, U.S., U.S., in the location of the coast line at the time of the accident, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was driving on one lane on the two-lanes expressway, while the insured vehicle of the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) was passing ahead of the Plaintiff vehicle without operating the direction, etc. at the two-lanes, and continued to stop immediately after the alteration to the first lane, and the Defendant vehicle was stopped rapidly, and the vehicle was stopped. The Plaintiff vehicle did not stop and stopped, 38,070,000 won in the insurance money paid for the accident in which the Defendant vehicle was concealed, and without any dispute, the purport of the entire statement or video as set forth in subparagraphs A through 6 and the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant vehicle was rapidly suspended after changing the vehicle from the two-lanes to the left side of the plaintiff vehicle without operating the direction direction, etc., the fault ratio of the accident of this case is 50%:50%, the plaintiff asserts that 50% (19,035,000 won = 3,807,000 won x 50%) of the insurance amount paid by the defendant, which is equivalent to 10% of the insurance amount paid by the defendant, (3,807,00 won = 3807,00 won x 10%) which is the remainder after deducting the amount equivalent to 15,28,000 won (19,035,000 won - 3,807,000 won - 3,807,000 won) from the two-lanes side of the plaintiff vehicle, the defendant accepted the change of the vehicle and asserts that the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of 10% of the defendant vehicle is inevitable.

According to Gap evidence No. 4 video, since the change of the vehicle in the front of the plaintiff vehicle (the second part of the video), the driver of the defendant vehicle was rapidly stopped due to the previous vehicle's rapid stop, and the driver of the defendant vehicle was rapidly stopped while operating the emergency vehicle.