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

1. The following facts of recognition may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings on the entries and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 and Eul evidence No. 1 to 3:

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On June 9, 2016, at around 15:55, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded into a high-level area along the four-lane road near the village-based village-based apartment in the Kimpo-dong, Kimpo-dong, and tried to change the lanes into the third-lane one. In the event that the Plaintiff’s vehicle followed the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the fourth-lane road in the Roman-dong, while driving the vehicle following the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the third-lane, and the vehicle was trying to overtake the Plaintiff’s vehicle by changing the vehicle to the third-lane one, the part on the right side of the Defendant’

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

On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,245,500 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred when the previous plaintiff's vehicle used direction direction, etc., and the previous defendant vehicle tried to overtake the plaintiff vehicle by raising speed without confirming the direction of the plaintiff vehicle. Thus, the fault ratio of the defendant vehicle is 80%.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the subsequent Defendant’s vehicle was caused by the negligence on the whole part of the Plaintiff vehicle, without properly examining the situation of the lane that the Plaintiff vehicle intends to change, while the vehicle was in progress after completing the change of the lane into a three-lane.

B. We examine the judgment, and in particular, the Defendant’s vehicle submitted with the evidence No. 4, the purport of the entire argument.