1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered under paragraph (2) shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On August 22, 2019, at around 17:00, the Defendant’s vehicle proceeded along the one lane at the intersection of the entry into the intersection in the Gangseo-dong, Gangseo-dong, Gangnam-si, and changed the vehicle into a two-lane for itself. In the process, the part of the Plaintiff’s seat after the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was proceeding along the two-lane, was shocked with the front front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

By August 30, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 1,552,000 won for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (the self-paid 388,000 won) as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 11, 13, 14, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purpose of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The facts acknowledged earlier, based on the aforementioned evidence, the following circumstances revealed, namely, ① the location of the instant accident, as the intersection, is likely to obstruct the normal passage of other vehicles running in the direction of the alteration in order to change the lane, and ② the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident was driving in normal conditions depending on the two-lanes of the said intersection, the Defendant’s vehicle was driving ahead of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the attempt to change the lane from the first lane to the second lane, ③ at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have attempted to change the lane without checking the progress of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have fulfilled its duty of care as a driver.