1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the said company as an agent driver with respect to a vehicle operated by the said company, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into the automobile insurance contract with B (hereinafter “Defendant”) with respect to the said vehicle.

B. On June 27, 2015, around 18:10 on June 27, 2015, the Defendant’s vehicle runs along the four-lanes between the two-lanes in the two-ri direction parallel parallel in the direction of Ilsan-Gu, Mapo-gu, Seoul.

While trying to change the lanes into two lanes, the front part of the front part of the driver's seat of the C (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff's vehicle") which is driven by the representative of the Ard Driving Company, which was driven by the representative of the Ard Driving Company (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff's vehicle"), was shocked with the front part of the front part of the Defendant's vehicle.

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

On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,300,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s driver of the Defendant’s vehicle showed the Plaintiff’s vehicle prior to the second line, but neglected the duty to ensure safety distance and the duty to maintain safety distance at the front line, and failed to change the vehicle at the front line, and thus, the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s unilateral negligence. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 5,300,000 and delay damages.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as seen above, the instant accident appears to have been driven by the Plaintiff immediately before changing the vehicle to a two-lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle is a frontway, when the Defendant’s vehicle shocks the Plaintiff’s vehicle while changing the vehicle on an express road. As such, it appears that the Defendant’s vehicle was driving ahead of it on the two-lane.