1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the owner of B Bus (hereinafter “Defendant bus”), and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into an automobile mutual aid agreement with the Defendant.

B. On July 18, 2017, at around 09:23, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven three lanes in front of the PPP site as Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, one of the four-lanes in front of the PPP site. The Defendant bus changed the course from four-lanes to three-lanes, which are the bus exclusive lanes of the above road, prior to the Defendant bus, and changed the course into two-lanes, and the Defendant bus tried to overtake the Defendant bus due to the defect that the Defendant bus tried to change its course into two-lanes, and stopped as it is, while the Defendant bus entered the two-lane course as it is, the Defendant bus changed into the two-lanes, the lower part of the strings of the Plaintiff bus, which is the back part of the Defendant bus’s left side.

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

On November 8, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,193,00 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealing the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence revealed prior to the occurrence of liability for damages, namely, ① the driver of any motor vehicle shall not change course when it is likely to obstruct the normal passage of another motor vehicle running in the direction of the change when intending to change course of the motor vehicle, and Defendant bus attempted to change course immediately into two lanes through three lanes. In addition, Defendant bus attempted to change course again into two lanes, even though the Plaintiff's motor vehicle already fell narrowly while narrow the distance with Defendant bus, and the Plaintiff's vehicle tried to change its course continuously with Defendant bus.