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

The defendant's vehicle driven the road front of the Sungwon-dong in Gwangju Mine-gu along the three-lanes of the four-lanes from the historical park room to the flood area.

The location was a three-lane intersection where signal lights are installed, and the defendant's vehicle changed the vehicle to a two-lane and tried to change the vehicle to a one-lane one-lane in the vicinity of the three-lane stop line after reducing the speed.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving the said road along the same two-lanes, and the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the two-lanes changed from the three-lanes to the two-lanes, and subsequently, the vehicle turned into the one-lanes, and thereafter, the upper part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which entered the first lane, was shocked by the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The instant accident is a two-laned lane, and the straighten signal at the time was operated.

From February 25, 2014 to May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,133,800 in total at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle destroyed by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 (including the number of pages) or images; the result of the inspection of records and video records by the court of the trial; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, since the Plaintiff fully compensates the Plaintiff for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, thereby jointly discharging the responsibility of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s vehicle operators, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount according to the Defendant’s fault ratio pursuant to Article 682 of the Commercial

On the other hand, the above evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings are considered as follows.