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. Basic facts

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 07:55 on December 15, 2016, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, driving the Defendant vehicle, and changing the 155-lane to the 155-lane from the front of the Defendant vehicle to the front side of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff vehicle, driving the two-lane from the front side of the Defendant vehicle, driving the 3-lane to the front side of the front side of the Defendant vehicle while driving the 155-lane to the front side of the 3-lane in the direction of the front side of the 3-lane.

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

On January 5, 2017, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 480,900 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The following circumstances revealed by the fact of recognition of liability for damages and the evidence mentioned above, namely, at the time of the accident, a large number of vehicles are proceeding along each other on the road at the time of the accident, and the Defendant’s vehicle proceeding in the first lane was at a speed higher than that of the vehicle running in the second lane in order to overtake the vehicle, and reduce the distance between the vehicle driving in the front of the vehicle and the vehicle driving in the second lane. The Defendant’s vehicle driving in the second lane entered the second lane of the vehicle driving in the front of the vehicle and the vehicle driving in the second lane of the vehicle driving in the second lane, while maintaining the direction of the vehicle at the time of entering the second lane, attempted to change the direction only between the vehicle driving in the third lane and the Plaintiff’s collision with the vehicle driving in the third lane. The Plaintiff’s vehicle driving in the third lane was excessive in the second lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving in the second lane prior to the vehicle driving in the vehicle.