1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under paragraph 2 below shall be revoked.

2...

1. On April 4, 2019, the day when the insured vehicle C (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) D (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), including the time when the driver is named at the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, the Plaintiff vehicle proceeds in three lanes at the location of the instant accident, which is the intersection of the new-dong-dong Intersection (hereinafter “instant accident site”) in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident site”) at the location of the instant accident. However, on April 19, 2019, the Defendant vehicle changed its course from two lanes to three lanes, and the amount paid for the insurance proceeds of the accident that conflict between the front part of the Defendant vehicle and the lower part of the Plaintiff’s left-hand part of the repair vehicle cost of KRW 564,500,000 for the Plaintiff’s repair vehicle and the repair vehicle cost of KRW 200,000 for self-compensation on April 19, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-8, Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion argues that the instant accident is attributable to the fact that the Defendant vehicle, which was driven along the two-lanes from the intersection, tried to rapidly overtake the instant vehicle in the direction of Erhyth, without turning on the direction light, while changing its course into the three-lanes. Thus, the Plaintiff is entirely responsible for the Defendant vehicle.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts to the effect that the accident of this case is an contact accident that occurred while the plaintiff's vehicle, which had been preceding the two lanes from the intersection, tried to overtake the vehicle to the right side of the defendant vehicle while driving in the three-lanes of the vehicle, and attempted to overtake the vehicle to the right side of the defendant vehicle, and that the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle should be sufficiently recognized.

B. (1) In light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned recognized facts and the evidence revealed in relation to the ratio of liability, such as the background leading up to the accident, the characteristics of the accident site, the degree of conflict and shock, and the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s vehicle regarding the instant accident.