1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On October 17, 2017, around 13:13:13, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded into four lanes among the four-lanes of the distances of the World Cup stadium 2-dong, Daegu Suwon-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-si, and the two-lanes: (a) Defendant’s vehicle entered the right-hand joint location; (b) the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked on the left-hand side of the Defendant vehicle.

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

On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,468,420 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 7, Eul evidence 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle was under way in four lanes, but the instant accident occurred by entering the Defendant’s vehicle in an excessive speed without temporarily stopping and speeding the vehicle in the combined section. As the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver was unable to predict the movement of the Defendant vehicle, the instant accident occurred due to the total fault of the Defendant vehicle. As the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident was lower than a clear day, there was no circumstance to interfere with the Plaintiff’s view of the vehicle. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver could have sufficiently discovered the Defendant’s vehicle entering the combined area, and caused the instant accident due to the failure to reduce the speed.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments, namely, ① Defendant vehicle violated the duty of temporary suspension and the duty of slowly driving in the course of entering the lane in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle is running from the joint roads.