1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

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

B. On April 18, 2016, around 07:07, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven along the right side of the third line road of the 10-lane road located in the 67-Dong-dong, Jungcheon-si, in the vicinity of the 3-lane road, and discovered the Defendant’s vehicle parked at the bus stops in the front bank, and changed the course into three-lanes.

While the Defendant’s vehicle stops as above and changes to the three-lanes, the Defendant’s vehicle fell behind the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

On May 12, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 1,072,00 at the cost of repairing the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry or image of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including branch numbers for those with a branch number) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The judgment is examined, and the driver of any motor vehicle shall not change the course when it is likely to impede the normal passage of another motor vehicle running in the direction to change the course (Article 19(3) of the Road Traffic Act). In light of the fact that the defendant motor vehicle which was seeking to change the course of the motor vehicle at the time of the accident of this case conflicts with the part behind the right side of the plaintiff motor vehicle driving ahead of the left side of the defendant motor vehicle at the time of the accident of this case, although the distance with the plaintiff motor vehicle has not been sufficiently secured, it seems that the vehicle of this case is unreasonable to change the vehicle while driving the motor vehicle, and it conflicts with the part behind the right side of the plaintiff motor vehicle driving ahead of the passenger motor vehicle driving ahead of the defendant motor vehicle at the time when the defendant motor vehicle stops at the bus stop at the bus stop.