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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the insurer of the D vehicle owned by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer of the E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) including the Plaintiff’s driver.

B. On December 13, 2019, around 13:55, the Defendant’s vehicle driven along the two lanes between the two-lanes in the intersection in the direction of the Hando-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, changed the two-lanes into three-lanes, and the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat and the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle entered the three-lanes bypassing the two-lanes (hereinafter “the instant accident”) occurred, and the details thereof are indicated in the attached sheet on the site map of the accident.

(c)

The Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed due to the instant accident, and until February 19, 2020, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 7,430,000 calculated by deducting KRW 500,000 from the total amount of damages as the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the total amount of KRW 7,930,000.

【Unfounded Grounds for Recognition】 The purport of the whole of the statements, images, and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and 7 (including various numbers)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) the instant accident is solely based on the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, as it was caused by the winding of the Defendant’s vehicle to change the course from the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle when the Plaintiff’s vehicle is making a direct driving after the right-hand.

(2) The instant accident occurred when the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was in motion bypassing to three lanes, did not stop on a temporary stop line, and the Plaintiff’s negligence on the instant accident ought to be recognized at least 30%.

B. (1) The following circumstances, i.e., the driver of any motor vehicle, who intends to change the course of the motor vehicle, can be recognized by adding the evidence and the purport of the whole theory of change, which are all the facts acknowledged prior to the determination of the ratio of negligence.