1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff equivalent to the amount ordered under paragraph (2) shall be revoked.

2...

1. Basic facts

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

B. On October 6, 2019, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle is driving a second lane in front of a F store located in E at Sh, the said road was changed from the point where the said road is changed from the first line to the second line, to the second line, and in the process, the Plaintiff’s vehicle followed the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving on the latter to the second line, shocked the Plaintiff’s right side portion on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, at the point where the two lanes are changed to the second line.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On November 1, 2019, the Plaintiff paid 1,065,000 won for the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (200,000 won for self-payment) as insurance money.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, namely, (i) the foregoing road was the first lane in which the instant accident occurred, and the said road was changed to the second lane prior to the place where the instant accident occurred; (ii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding behind the Defendant’s vehicle up to the day immediately before the increase in the number of lanes as above; (iii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle changed to the first lane from the second lane to the second lane; (iv) the Defendant’s vehicle attempted to change to the second lane; and (v) at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle had already completed the change of lanes; (v) the said road was the first lane prior to the increase in the number of lanes; and (v) the Plaintiff’s vehicle was the first lane prior to the increase in the number of lanes, and thus, the Defendant’s vehicle was the Defendant’s vehicle.