1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with A (hereinafter “Plaintiff-wheeled Vehicle”) with respect to B, and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. At around 14:10 on July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff’s two-wheeled vehicle driven at the fourth-lanes at the intersection of the New Village Intersection in Yyang-si and changed to three-lanes, and the Defendant’s two-lanes, while changing to three-lanes, was shocked into the front side of the Plaintiff’s two-wheeled vehicle.

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

On August 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,000,000 to D as medical expenses, when he/she was injured by D, who was on board the Defendant’s two-wheeled Vehicle due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the plaintiff Lee-wheeled vehicle who attempted to change the tea and the negligence of the defendant vehicle who violated the duty of presentation on the front side and the right side side side side, and that the negligence of the defendant vehicle exceeds 40%, so the defendant vehicle should pay to the plaintiff 1,200,000 won and damages for delay equivalent to 40% of the medical expenses paid to D.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case was caused by the whole negligence of the plaintiff's two-wheeled vehicle, so the plaintiff's claim is groundless.

B. The following circumstances, which are recognized by the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, are as follows: the location of the accident in this case is the first and second lanes, and the third and fourth lanes are the lanes prior to the right ofpass; the driver of the Plaintiff-wheeled Vehicle, while proceeding into the fourth lane prior to the right ofpassing, has a shocked with the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle that made the right ofpassing along the third lane without any particular signal.