1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the Suwon Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. Around 12:20 on July 1, 2016, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and changing the vehicle from the first line to the five lanes from the other five lanes from the other five lanes from the other five lanes in order to enter the gas station on the street in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Gosi-gu, Young-si. In order to enter the gas station, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflicts with the Defendant’s vehicle in the fourth lane in the same room.

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

On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the mutual aid amount of KRW 4,658,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the failure of the driver of the defendant vehicle to drive the vehicle in violation of the duty to safely drive the vehicle. Since the fault ratio of the defendant vehicle affected the accident in this case is 50%, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 2,329,000 won, which is equivalent to the above fault ratio among the mutual aid money paid by the plaintiff, and damages for delay.

B. In other words, at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle was normally proceeding in four lanes, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the vehicle from one to five lanes to five lanes in order to enter the oil station on the right side, and as the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed rapidly from two lanes to two lanes, the vehicle changed rapidly, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed the vehicle at a very rapid speed to the left side of the Defendant vehicle.