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.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a mutual agreement with respect to the deliberation of automobile insurance disputes.

B. On June 24, 2019, around 18:50, the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped from the two lanes in front of the F Company’s building in Sungnam-si, Gyeonggi-si, along the five-lanes of the five-lanes, to the front one of the two-lanes of the previous vehicles. While the Defendant’s vehicle changed from the four-lane to the three-lanes in the same direction, there was an accident of collision between the front one on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which changed from the two-lanes to the three-lanes, and the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

The Defendant paid 1,067,00 won of total amount of damages, such as the repair cost, etc. of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, to the insured, applied for a dispute deliberation to the G Committee. On December 16, 2019, the said Deliberation Committee deliberated and decided on the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle to 60:40,000, pursuant to the deliberation and resolution and mutual agreement, the Plaintiff paid 640,200 won to the Defendant on December 30, 2019, equivalent to 60% of the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5 through 7, Eul evidence 2 to 6, video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff 1's assertion that the accident in this case occurred while the plaintiff's vehicle driven slowly from the two lanes to the three lanes, and the change of the vehicle is almost completed at a considerable speed, while the defendant vehicle was changing the vehicle from the four lanes to the three lanes, the accident in this case is an accident due to the unilateral negligence of the defendant vehicle, and it is already paid to the defendant.