1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On December 4, 2017, around 07:35, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the three-lanes on the Seocho-gu Expressway (hereinafter “instant road”). The Defendant’s vehicle changed the two-lanes to three-lanes on the instant road, and the part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was the front part of the right edge of the Defendant’s vehicle, was shocked by the lower part on the left edge of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

On December 29, 2017, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 935,000,000, which occurred in the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, to the bank of dispute resolution and the three-day parts of the company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap's evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's argument is merely a normal three-lane of the road of this case, and the defendant's vehicle has shocked behind the plaintiff's vehicle while changing the three-lane of the road of this case into the three-lane. Since the accident of this case occurred solely by the unilateral negligence of the defendant's vehicle, the defendant is also obligated to pay to the plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the appeal. 2) According to the defendant's claim site map, the plaintiff's vehicle was driving ahead of the defendant's vehicle before the accident of this case occurred, and the plaintiff's vehicle was obliged to take the movement of the preceding defendant's vehicle and drive safely. The accident of this case occurred by the joint negligence of the plaintiff's vehicle of this case and the defendant's vehicle of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is groundless.

B. As to the rate of negligence of the instant accident, the circumstances acknowledged in light of the aforementioned evidence, i.e., the Plaintiff’s vehicle.