1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to pay is revoked, and that part.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 9, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) around 21:18, at the end of the Seoul East-gu Seoul Central District Office located in 267, the Seoul Central District Office (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Office”); (b) at the end of the Seoul Central District Office (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Office”); (c) at the end of the Seoul Central District Office (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Office”); and (d) at the end of the Seoul Central District Office (hereinafter “Seoul Central District Office”), there was a sudden change in the lanes and did not notify the vehicle in advance due to direction lights or hand signals, etc.

B. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a contract with B to pay insurance proceeds with respect to the liability for damages.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 3 and 13 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition that the accident of this case occurred from the accident of this case, as the accident of this case occurred from the accident of this case, since the accident of this case occurred from the accident of this case rapidly changed from the first lane to the third lane without notifying the change of direction direction lights or hand signals, etc. in advance, the defendant is liable as the insurer for compensation for the damage

B. Limit of liability: (a) the following circumstances are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the facts of recognition as above and evidence Nos. 13-1 to 26 of the evidence No. 13, i.e., the Plaintiff viewed the bicycle driven by B at the point of the end of the argument; (b) the Plaintiff was shocking the part of the bicycle driven by B in front of the Ortoba, which was driven by the Plaintiff; and (c) the Plaintiff was able to change the lane with the vehicle driven by the passenger on the side line; and (d) the Plaintiff has a duty of care to predict and prepare for the change of the lane.