1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. The following facts are not in dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the contents and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7 and the whole purport of the pleadings.

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

B. On March 4, 2017, around 19:40, a traffic accident (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”) occurred that conflicts between the front part of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the lower part of the Defendant’s left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which changed the lane to a three-lane, proceeding from the three-lane road immediately preceding the access road to the outer circulation road in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Hongdong (the first, the second two-lane is the straight lane, and the third-lane is the one entering the inner circulation road).

C. With respect to the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 294,700 in total on March 30, 2017 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff's vehicle indicated that it should change the lane while driving the vehicle, and that the traffic accident in this case occurred due to the former negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who carried out the vehicle unreasonably without yield the course to the plaintiff's vehicle, and that the defendant claimed that the traffic accident in this case occurred due to the former negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who attempted to change the lane. The defendant claimed that the traffic accident in this case occurred due to the former negligence of the driver of the

B. The following circumstances, i.e., the three-lanes at the time of the instant traffic accident, including the Defendant, were driven by a number of vehicles seeking to enter the internal circular road. However, the Plaintiff’s vehicle continued the two-lanes and attempted to change the three-lanes to the three-lanes prior to the access road.