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 the owner of C urban bus vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer who concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 3, 2018, around 22:10, the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the lane from the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the left side of the vehicle departing from the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the left side of the front side (on the left side and the left side) at the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lane road in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, to turn to the left at the left side, while the traffic signal from the rear side of the Defendant vehicle was lightsed in green, but the Defendant vehicle still stops at the front side (on the right side and right side) while the traffic signal from the front side of the Defendant vehicle and the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle are turned to the front side (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s driver who starts from the first place without confirming the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven by emergency lights as if the accident in this case was a broken vehicle at the first place and stopped one to two minutes, according to the normal signal causing damage. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle who moved to the left rapidly in the future of the Defendant’s vehicle at the second lane, not the left-hand

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged as one liability for damages, which are acknowledged by the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle continued to turn on an emergency, etc. and interfered with the traffic of the vehicle passing the same lane even if the traffic signal in the front section was changed to the ongoing signal, and thereby, the Defendant’s vehicle continued to stop on the first lane and interfered with the traffic of the vehicle passing along the same lane.