1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The circumstances leading up to the instant accident are as follows.

On June 11, 2018, 20:32 on June 11, 2018, the insured vehicle CD of the insured vehicle of the Plaintiff at the time of the accident, the vehicle in the situation of the collision near the three-lane intersections in the middle-dong in the middle-dong, the two-lanes of the above three-lanes and passes through the intersections, and then attempt to change the lanes into the one-lanes, the front right side of the Defendant vehicle, which was followed by one-lane, the left left turn prior to the entry into the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle. The payment of the insurance money, on August 20, 2018, was 717,00,000 won for the repair of the Plaintiff vehicle, which was 20,000 won (based on recognition), did not dispute, the purport of the entire pleadings, as well as the descriptions and video number Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, 1 through 5 (a).

2. The parties' assertion

A. While the Plaintiff’s vehicle was normally straight along the two-lanes of the three-lanes, the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle entering the intersection by straighting along the intersection in violation of the straight line from the first lane exclusive for left-hand turn to the left-hand one. The Plaintiff’s driver, who is the Plaintiff’s driver, cannot expect the Defendant’s vehicle to enter and pass the intersection in violation of the direction, and thus, the instant accident was caused by the negligence of the Defendant’s driver’s crossing, such as the violation of the method of passage through the intersection and the violation of the designated lane, etc., and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the entire repair cost that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff as a indemnity.

B. At the time of the defendant, the defendant's vehicle had been in normal step along the three-lanes after passing through the intersection. Since the plaintiff's vehicle did not look at the rear side and only changed the lane, the defendant's vehicle conflict with the defendant's vehicle. Thus, the accident in this case occurred due to the plaintiff's major negligence in the driver of the vehicle who violated the method of career change as above.

3. Determination.