Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount of additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to D Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On September 19, 2019, around 12:56, the Defendant’s vehicle waiting for the left-hand turn turn on the road in the south-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., U.S.-dong (hereinafter “instant accident”) and changing the lane into one lane for the U.S., while waiting for the signal at the two-lane, the right-hand turn, and without operating the direction, etc., the vehicle was in conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving on the one lane (hereinafter “instant accident”).

On October 1, 2019, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 5,552,970, excluding KRW 500,000 for its own contributions at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 10 through 14 (including various numbers if there are numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the facts of the judgment as to the right of indemnity, the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments, namely, the Defendant’s vehicle waiting in a two-lane left-hand turn at the time of the instant accident, attempted to change the lane rapidly without checking the progress of the vehicle at the time of the instant accident, without operating the direction, etc., and attempted to change the lane rapidly. However, the instant accident directly caused the instant accident. However, as at the time of the instant accident, it was difficult for the Defendant’s vehicle to expect that the signal waiting vehicle will have entered a one-lane vehicle, because it is difficult for the Defendant’s vehicle to expect that the vehicle will have entered a one-lane vehicle, following the Defendant’s second-lane vehicle at the time of the instant accident, with the safety zone prohibited from entering, and without giving any attention to the vehicle's course changed, the background leading up to the occurrence of the accident, and other reasons.