1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

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

B. On March 31, 2017, around 06:40 on March 31, 2017, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving in one lane between the three lanes near the remote distance of the public health clinic of the Seogdong-si, Mapo-si and the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle was driving in the same direction.

However, there was an accident that the Defendant’s vehicle changed its course to the Plaintiff’s vehicle within its intersection (e.g., yellow on-and-off signal) to the lower part of the Defendant’s driver’s seat, leading the front front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident,” and the intensity of the accident site is as shown in attached Form 3.

On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 247,700 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case was caused by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who continued to proceed as soon as possible while changing the lane to the driver of the defendant vehicle within the intersection where it is impossible for the driver of the vehicle to change the lane.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that, in the section where the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle is expanding from the three lanes to the four lanes, the vehicle driven the first two lanes in the intersection, and the vehicle driven the two lanes in the intersection to the two lanes. Rather, without considering the expansion of the vehicle’s lane, the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the two lanes from the first lane to the second lane, thereby causing an accident by the Plaintiff’s unilateral negligence.

B. (1) Determination of Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act shall be made on all vehicles.