1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned vehicles”), and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C-owned vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicles”).

B. A, around 17:55 on May 22, 2015, driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and proceeded along the two lanes near the 3rd line of the 3rd line in the 0th parallel road in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seoul. On the same day, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was rapidly driven by the string of the vehicle, where the string of the previous vehicles at the three-lane at the time when the change of the string line was almost finished, while changing the string line beyond the string line in which the change of the string line is prohibited.

However, at the time, the defendant's vehicle driving along the three lanes behind the plaintiff's vehicle and changing the vehicle from the two lanes to the two lanes conflict with the left side of the plaintiff's vehicle as the front part of the right side, which led to a collision between the plaintiff's vehicle and other D and E vehicles, which are the front vehicle, in the future.

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

By June 5, 2015, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 8,286,600 in total with repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, KRW 2,881,00 in the repair cost of the D vehicle, and KRW 3,897,00 in the repair cost of the E vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle seeking to change the vehicle from the two lanes to the three lanes, even though he/she has a duty of care to secure the safety distance with the rear vehicle and safely change the vehicle, he/she is negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care to change the vehicle from the lower part of the white solid line, which is prohibited from changing the vehicle, but is negligent in changing the vehicle from the lower part to the three lanes.

However, the aforementioned evidence is acknowledged in accordance with the purport of the entire argument.