1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

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

Plaintiff

On March 31, 2016, when the vehicle was made at the intersection in front of the claim apartment of the Sudong-dong at Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and was made bypassing four lanes, the part on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was made bypass from the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked into the left side of the front-hand part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

On May 23, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 280,740 as the repair cost for the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of both claims;

A. The Plaintiff: The instant accident occurred on the wind that the Defendant’s vehicle driven in a two-lane lane (three-lane) flows into a four-lanes by the Gap himself, and makes a right-hand way.

Accordingly, the defendant's reimbursement of 280,740 won is sought.

B. Defendant: The instant accident occurred because the Plaintiff’s vehicle following the Defendant’s vehicle, while the Defendant’s vehicle was making a normal round at a four-lane, was moving to the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle and attempted to make a right-hand.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for indemnity is without merit.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, namely, ① the location of the final stop of the Defendant vehicle and the shock level with the Plaintiff’s vehicle (the right side rather than the front part of the Defendant vehicle), the Defendant vehicle appears to have made a bypass on the three-lane, the left side of the Plaintiff vehicle, ② the Plaintiff vehicle appears to have driven on the four-lane normally, and there is no evidence to prove that it was unreasonably entering the right side of the Defendant vehicle.