The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. With respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to E vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On July 24, 2017, around 11:47, there was an accident in which the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was located in the two lanes (former lanes) among the five-lane roads located in the intersection near the F of the Subdivision in Seongbuk-si, Sungnam-si, and the left side of the Defendant vehicle, which was left left at the three-lane (former lanes) and the left side of the Defendant vehicle, are contacted.

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

On September 14, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the amount calculated by deducting KRW 500,000 of the self-paid amount of KRW 2,586,000 from the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On August 20, 2018, the committee for deliberation on the dispute over reimbursement of automobile insurance determined that “the accident in this case is a collision between the defendant vehicle that had left at the three-lanes (on the two-lanes), and the plaintiff vehicle that had left at the two-lanes (on the two-lanes),” and decided to evaluate the rate of negligence related to the accident in this case as 90% of the plaintiff vehicle and 10% of the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 9 (including each number), video, result of commission, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s instant accident is an accident that, while the Defendant’s vehicle is proceeding on a four-lane, changes its course to a three-lane one another before entering the intersection, and the front part of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was proceeding on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle. In light of the foregoing circumstances, in light of the above circumstances of the accident, it is deemed that the Defendant committed an unilateral negligence by Defendant’s vehicle that breached the duty of care when changing the lane. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money stated in

(2) The instant accident occurred while the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding at a two-lane, which is the right-hand left-hand turn, in violation of its instruction.