1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

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

B. At around 08:30 on February 19, 2016, the Defendant vehicle turned to the left-hand turn at the intersection of the distance intersection of the Namdong-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, Namdong-dong, the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes from the Southern East-dong Industrial Complex to the Southern East-dong IIC, and changed to the one-lane. The Plaintiff vehicle behind the Defendant vehicle discovered the Defendant vehicle and proceeded to the safety zone installed on the left-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle through the safety zone installed on the left-hand side of the first lane, while the vehicle turned to the right-hand part of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 919,00 in total at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1 and 2, video (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. At the time of the accident of this case, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle at the time of the accident of this case was aware that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle changed the vehicle from the two lanes to the one lane, but it was difficult to turn on the defendant vehicle through the safety zone set up on the left side of the first lane. The accident of this case caused the accident of this case. Meanwhile, the driver of the defendant vehicle also changed the vehicle to the one lane in a situation where the distance with the plaintiff vehicle was not sufficiently secured, and it is reasonable to 50% of the plaintiff vehicle: 50% of the defendant vehicle.

B. Therefore, the Defendant’s performance obligation from February 27, 2016, equivalent to 50% of the Plaintiff’s insurance proceeds of KRW 919,00,00, equivalent to 50% of the Defendant’s fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle (i.e., 919,000 x 50%) and its performance obligation.