1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the owner of a visible motor vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the owner of B bus B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On February 27, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle near the D Hospital located in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, changed the lane and the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused an accident that conflicts between the driver’s seat part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the right part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). (c)

On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 7,420,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Grounds for recognition] The written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving over the center line to overtake the Defendant’s front vehicle, is an accident that has shocked the part on the side of the Plaintiff’s seat on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the fault of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while changing the lane from three lanes to one lane in order for the Plaintiff’s vehicle to turn left. The instant accident was an accident where the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle fell short of the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions in Gap evidence 2, 3, and Eul evidence 1 and video images, the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiff driver and the driver of the defendant vehicle who did not properly operate the brake system while attempting to change the lane to the left-hand side and who did not properly confirm the vehicle condition of the vehicle in the lane, and the driver of the defendant vehicle who did not operate the brake system to the left-hand left-hand turn. It is reasonable to view that the negligence rate is 50% of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and 50% of the driver of the defendant vehicle.

(1) The Defendant’s vehicle is between three lanes.