1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid contractor who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 22:10 on December 28, 2014, the Plaintiff’s vehicle is proceeding along the two lanes of the two lanes among the two lanes of the two lanes located in Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-do. The Defendant’s vehicle driven on the first lane prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle confirmed the change of the two lanes to the second lane, and subsequently, the vehicle is going ahead after changing the two lanes to the first lane.

After the change of the vehicle to the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant’s vehicle approach to the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle again when the vehicle passes by the Defendant’s side. Accordingly, the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front side of the front side and the bottom part of the center of the Plaintiff’s vehicle were shocked.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On January 19, 2015, the Plaintiff paid 12,190,000 won for repair costs due to the damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as insurance money.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The instant accident occurred as the Defendant’s vehicle did not operate the direction direction, etc. and was rapidly changed from the second line to the first line, and the instant accident occurred. Thus, the instant accident occurred due to the total negligence of the Defendant vehicle.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred by changing the vehicle line to the first line while maintaining the speed while maintaining the safe distance with the front line in order for the Plaintiff’s vehicle to maintain the safety distance with the front line. As such, the fault ratio of the Plaintiff’s vehicle ought to be recognized at least 40%.

(c) The driver of any motor vehicle in the relevant provision 1 shall be the other motor vehicle running in the direction to which the driver intends to change course of the motor vehicle.