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 each automobile insurance contract with respect to D Pots Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), with respect to D Pots Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. On August 11, 2017, around 19:20, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded along the two-lane road in front of the F Hospital located in Seongbuk-gun, Seongbuk-gun, Sungju-gun, with the one-lane distance outflow from the boundary of the Sungju Police Station, and the two-lanes of the same road, and the two-lanes of the Defendant’s vehicle, which attempted to be loaded on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the other side of the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, conflict (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the insurance proceeds of KRW 12,370,000 (the amount of KRW 500,000 for self-liability exemption) at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry and video of Gap's 1 through 5, 7 through 9 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the driver of the defendant's vehicle who attempted an illegal internship in the second lane, while the defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle is negligent by failing to reduce the speed by violating the duty of Jeonju and the duty of safe driving in spite of the distance and time at which the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle can fully recognize the change of the vehicle of this case.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged based on the above facts acknowledged and the evidence mentioned above, namely, the place where the accident of this case occurred, that is, the road section where the central line of yellow solid lines terminates and the center line of yellow solid lines is located, is not a zone where the internship is permitted. Nevertheless, the defendant's vehicle does not turn on the direction light, and attempted an illegal internship by driving one lane from the two-lanes, and the plaintiff's vehicle was driving in the front side of the defendant's vehicle, but the driver of the vehicle attempted the above illegal internship.