1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The Plaintiff’s basic facts are the insurer of the vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), the Defendant is the respective insurer of the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), the occurrence of an accident involving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle facing the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the road near the Southern-dong, Suwon-dong, Busan (hereinafter “instant accident”), around March 15, 2015, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 771,000 for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on March 27, 2015, is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties or the entire purport of the pleading in the statement in the evidence No. 3.

2. The parties' assertion

A. While the Plaintiff’s vehicle intended to change the lane from the two lanes to the three lanes, the bus, etc. is in progress from the three lanes, the Defendant’s instant vehicle stopped by the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the bus.

The accident of this case is due to the unilateral negligence of the defendant vehicle.

B. The accident of this case occurred due to the conflict with the defendant vehicle, which is in progress in the two-lanes where the plaintiff vehicle tried to change the lane into the three-lanes, discovered buses entering the four-lanes, returned again to the two-lanes, and returned to the two-lanes. This is due to the unilateral negligence of the plaintiff vehicle.

Even if not, the negligence of the Plaintiff vehicle is greater in the accident of this case.

3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, and 3 and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the instant accident is destroyed by the front and rear door of the driver’s seat, and the part of the Defendant’s front door of the steering seat; the Plaintiff’s vehicle after the instant accident was stopped across the two-lane and the three-lane, and the Defendant’s vehicle stopped on the left side of the two-lane. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have occurred by collision with the Defendant’s vehicle in the process of returning from the three-lane to the two-lane.