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. The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7.

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

B. On December 27, 2015, around 10:20, at the end of 10:20, a traffic accident occurred between the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat side and the Defendant’s chief side of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) at the location between the point where the crossing was passing immediately before the intersection and the point where the vehicle of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat side of the Defendant’s seat was in conflict (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

C. On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 525,780 in total at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in relation to the instant traffic accident.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that the traffic accident in this case occurred immediately before the intersection, and that the change of lane occurred from the de facto negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle who changed the lane in the de facto line where the change of lane is prohibited. The defendant asserts that the traffic accident in this case occurred after the passage through the intersection, and the defendant entered the same two-lane normally, and that the traffic accident in this case occurred after the passage through the intersection, and the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle entered the two-lanes without the plaintiff's entry into the three-lane, and thus,

B. In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 7, the Plaintiff’s employee, at the time of the instant traffic accident, confirmed the occurrence of the instant traffic accident to the Plaintiff’s driver and the Defendant’s driver, and all the said drivers were three lanes.