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.

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

On August 21, 2017, at the time of the accident, the insured vehicle A, at the location of the insured vehicle A, on August 21, 2017 at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s insured vehicle”) was driven by the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle in front of the YBS Broadcasting Station, Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, along three laness of the two lanes, with the right-hand side, while the Defendant’s insured vehicle driving along the two lanes of the above road (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”) was driven by three lanes, the part on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the 13,022,960 won in payment of the shock insurance money [based on recognition], there is no dispute, and the entries and video of the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle in front of the two lanes, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as well as the entire statement, video, and oral proceedings.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident occurred solely by the negligence of the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, and claimed the full amount of the insurance money paid by the Plaintiff and the damages for delay from the day following the payment date of the insurance money. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability on the ground that the Plaintiff’s driver at the time of the instant

The following facts acknowledged by the above facts and the evidence revealed: (a) in this case, there is no evidence to deem that there was a possibility of the change of the vehicle of the defendant, such as (i) the driver of the vehicle, who was normally proceeding along the vehicle's own lane, and (ii) the driver of the vehicle, who was proceeding along the vehicle's own lane, was faced with the part on the left side of the vehicle of the plaintiff who was going along the three-lanes; and (iii) there is no evidence to deem that there was a possibility of the change of the vehicle of the defendant in this case, such as (i) the driver of the vehicle, who was normally proceeding along the vehicle's own lane, was faced with the three-lanes.