1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded the automobile insurance contract with respect to B bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 07:00 on November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was proceeding along the two lanes of the three-lanes of the border border road located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Guro-gu. However, the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding on the first lane in the front side, changed the vehicle to three-lanes through the two-lanes on its own, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle, in order to avoid a conflict with the Defendant’s vehicle, conflict with the upper left side of the C vehicle operating along the said three-lanes on the right side of the Plaintiff’s right side of the vehicle (hereinafter “victim”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

By January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the total amount of KRW 1,593,640 to the expenses for repairing damaged vehicles and the expenses for agreements on drivers of damaged vehicles and the expenses for treatment.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, video (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The fault ratio of the original Defendant vehicle is the wind that the Defendant vehicle, which was driven at one lane on the left side of the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle, rapidly changes the vehicle from two lanes to three lanes, and the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle driving at the two lanes, conflicts with other vehicles on the right side in the course of plucking and digging up hand to the right side in order to avoid a collision with the Defendant vehicle. On the other hand, as the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle, the driver of the vehicle has neglected his duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident, such as early detection of the Defendant vehicle, which attempts to change the lane by expressing the front side in the front side while driving, and reduction of speed, by taking account of the situation of the instant accident, and by negligence, the fault ratio of the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle.