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

2...

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. On February 18, 2017, around 18:46, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along a two-lane road of the 5-lane road in Man-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Busan (hereinafter “instant accident”) and the Defendant’s vehicle, who changed the said vehicle to the two-lane, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving along a two-lane road of the 5-lane road prior to the entry into the Man-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Busan (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

C. On March 30, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,056,00 of the insurance money as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the images and arguments in Eul evidence No. 1 in the above facts of recognition, the first lane of the defendant vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue is extinguished by the construction work, and the second lane is turned into two lanes. The vehicle driving the first lane was changed into two lanes in the order of one vehicle in the bottle section immediately before the point of the accident at which the vehicle at the time of the accident at issue was extinguished. On the other hand, the plaintiff, who was driving along the first two lanes, continued to drive along the second lane after giving way to another vehicle (the vehicle immediately front of the defendant vehicle) in the above section at the same time. However, it is recognized that the plaintiff vehicle attempted to change the second lane in the second lane in the order of its own order, while the vehicle at issue tried to change the two lanes.

According to the above facts, the accident of this case was committed normally by the driver of the plaintiff vehicle in the Byung-section, but the driver of the defendant vehicle who is proceeding in the next section is unreasonable.